Appeal No. 2000-0723
Application 08/852,415
Thus, appellants argue that Yamauchi does not teach or suggest
the script including information identifying an encoding
method as claimed. Appellants also argue that the script of
Yamauchi does not include playback control information as
claimed. Appellants argue, therefore, that the applied prior
art does not teach or suggest the “script” as recited in claim
1 [brief, pages 6-10].
The examiner responds that although appellants’
argument regarding the teachings of Yamauchi is correct,
Yamauchi nevertheless teaches that the data stored therein is
digitally encoded. The examiner asserts that Yamauchi
contains additional teachings which support the rejection.
The examiner also notes that the “playback control
information” limitation does not appear in representative
claim 1. The examiner argues, nevertheless, that the
disclosed control or playback control information is necessary
and taught by Hatakenaka [answer, pages 12-15].
Appellants respond that although the examiner has
attempted to change the teachings of the prior art being
relied on, the applied prior art still fails to teach or
suggest the script as recited in claim 1. Appellants also
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007