Appeal No. 2000-2111
Application No. 08/860,537
characterized in that
the controlling means of the reproducing apparatus
inquires about the reproduction speed of the video data to
the input/output controlling means of the recording and
reproducing apparatus, receives reproduction speed
authorization data or reproduction speed designation data
supplied from the input/output controlling means and
controls the reproducing means of the reproducing apparatus
so as to reproduce the video data from the recording medium
at the designated speed based on the received reproduction
speed authorization data or reproduction speed designation
data.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Nagasawa 5,647,047 July 8, 1997
(filed Dec. 13, 1994)
Hasegawa 5,576,907 Nov. 19, 1996
(filed Jun. 7, 1995)
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Nagasawa. Claims 8 through 11 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Nagasawa and Hasegawa.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the Examiner and Appellants regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 16, mailed December 6,
1999) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 15, filed September 16,
1999) and the reply brief (Paper No. 17, filed February 6, 2000)
for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007