Appeal No. 2000-0723
Application 08/852,415
inherency argument to support the rejection [brief, pages 10-
14].
The examiner responds that appellants are improperly
attacking the references individually. The examiner notes
that Allen, by teaching mastering, must format and record all
signals from one medium to another including the encoding
method, format information, video/image and sound in a
specified format meeting the limitations of first, second,
third, etc. signals. The examiner notes that Lee has been
cited to teach that the second signal can correspond to the
encoding method [answer, pages 15-18].
Appellants respond that the examiner has changed his
findings on what the references teach, and that the examiner
is now relying on some type of inherency argument.
Specifically, appellants argue that the examiner has simply
speculated what is required when a mastering process as taught
by Allen takes place. Appellants argue that the examiner’s
speculative assumptions with respect to the applied prior art
do not establish a prima facie case of obviousness [reply
brief, pages 5-8].
We again agree with the position argued by appellants.
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007