Appeal No. 2000-2111
Application No. 08/860,537
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellants state that claims 1
and 2 constitute one group while claims 8 through 11 stand or
fall together (brief, page 5). Thus, we will consider claims 1
and 2 as one group and claims 8 through 11 as another for
considering their rejections under §§ 102 and 103. We will treat
claims 1 and 8 as the representative claims of their respective
groups.
With regard to the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under
35 U.S.C. § 102, Appellants argue that Nagasawa discloses only
one control means, control unit 27, which is not separate and
apart from the input/output control means (brief, page 6 and
reply brief, page 3). Appellants further assert that Nagasawa’s
control means does not inquire to the input/output control means
about “the reproduction speed” that is applied for reproducing
data from the recording medium (brief, pages 6 & 7 and reply
brief, page 3).
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ arguments by stating
that Nagasawa teaches a control means that receives a designation
speed command from the user supplied by control means to the
reproducing apparatus (answer, page 6). The Examiner buttresses
this position by referring to columns 5, 7 and 9 of the reference
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007