Appeal No. 2000-0723
Application 08/852,415
respond that playback control information, as used in the
specification and claims, is not contemplated by the “script”
of Hatakenaka [reply brief, pages 1-5].
We do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1
for the reasons essentially argued by appellants in the
briefs. First, we agree with appellants that the “script”
allegedly generated by Yamauchi does not contain information
identifying said encoding method in a tabular format. The
examiner’s authority to interpret the claims broadly does not
support his position in support of the rejection. The fact
that different encoding techniques were known does not support
the examiner’s contention that the data stored in Yamauchi
includes information identifying the encoding method in a
tabular format. Yamauchi only teaches that data which may
have been encoded is stored. Second, we fail to see the
motivation for combining the teachings of Hatakenaka with the
teachings of Yamauchi. In our view, the only basis for
combining the teachings of Hatakenaka and Yamauchi as proposed
by the examiner is to improperly attempt to reconstruct
appellants’ invention in hindsight. Therefore, we do not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 6.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007