Appeal No. 2001-1930
Application No. 08/833,719
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker,
977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 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).
At the outset, we note that appellants have elected to have
claims 1-3 and 5-7 (i.e., the claims on appeal) to be grouped
together (brief at page 4). We take claim 1 as representative of
the group.
Following the guidelines of a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 enunciated above, the examiner gives a detailed explanation
of the rejection of claim 1 at pages 3-6 of the examiner’s
answer, wherein the examiner concludes (id. at page 6) that:
it would have been obvious . . . to modify Norton et
al. by incorporating a control for performing playback
in the forward and reverse directions as taught by
Rayner in order to provide a means to preview the
edited source material with respect to a play list in
the forward as well as reverse directions as taught by
Rayner . . . .
Appellants discuss the Norton reference and the Rayner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007