Appeal No. 2001-1930
Application No. 08/833,719
linked list of storage locations on said storage medium used for
storing the source files, said routing table facilitating replay
of said edited material sequence of clips in both forward and
reverse directions.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Rayner 5,388,197 Feb. 7, 1995
Norton et al. (Norton) 5,568,275 Oct. 22, 1996
(filed Jun. 26, 1995)
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Norton in view of Rayner.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants and the
examiner, we make reference to the brief (Paper No. 13), the
reply brief (Paper No. 16) and the examiner’s answer (Paper No.
14) for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejection advanced by the examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
appellants’ arguments set forth in the briefs.
We affirm.
As a general proposition, in an appeal involving a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, an Examiner is under a burden to make out
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007