Appeal No. 2000-2111
Application No. 08/860,537
speed transfer machine 26 at n times the normal transfer rate
(second data rate being higher than the first data rate) in
response to control signal NRc (col. 5, lines 29-35).
In view of the analysis above, we find that the examiner has
met the burden of providing a prima facie case of anticipation.
In that regard, Nagasawa teaches input/output controlling means
and control means for a reproducing apparatus wherein video data
is reproduced at a designated speed received from the control
means, as recited in Appellants’ independent claim 1. Similarly,
as discussed above, the reference teaches the first and the
second input/output controlling means as well as the recording
and reproduction means, as recited in Appellants’ independent
claim 2. Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 1 and 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over Nagasawa.
Regarding the rejection of claims 8 through 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Nagasawa and Hasegawa, we note that the
Examiner, in the statement of rejection, suggests that Nagasawa
discloses the claimed invention except for “the tracks having
different azimuth angles” (answer, page 5). The Examiner
suggests the obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art of
modifying Nagasawa by using a “recording control means for
controlling the recording and reproducing heads to scan the tape
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007