Appeal No. 2000-2094
Application No. 08/923,369
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
With respect to independent claim 10, the representative claim
for Appellants’ first suggested grouping (including claims 10-16
and 21-27), the Examiner, as the basis for the obviousness
rejection, proposes to modify the disclosure of Lang which
describes a video data editing feature utilized in a video data
recording and reproducing system. According to the Examiner
(Answer, page 5), Lang discloses the claimed invention except that
Lang, because of the limitations associated with the A/D conversion
process required for the analog video tape recorder used in the
audio/video recording unit (AVRU-11), does not provide for the
transfer of data from the video tape recorder to the disc recorder
13 at higher than a real time rate. To address this deficiency,
the Examiner turns to Takada which discloses a technique for high
speed tape dubbing using a digital video tape recorder. In the
Examiner’s analysis (id. at 5 and 6), the skilled artisan,
considering that Lang suggests an alternative digital environment
for the audio/video recording unit 11, would have been motivated
and found it obvious to replace the analog video tape recorder of
Lang with the digital video tape recorder of Takada to provide
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007