Appeal No. 2001-1930
Application No. 08/833,719
. . . Norton et al. discloses forward reproduction and
further provides scrolling at col. [sic] col. 5, lines
22-30. The disclosed “scrolling” feature is a clear
suggestion to one skilled in the recording -
reproduction art, to indicate both forward as well as
reverse reproduction directions. Never the less [sic,
Nevertheless], Norton et al. has not been relied upon
to clearly show the “reverse” reproduction direction
feature.
We again agree with the examiner’s position. First of all,
Rayner, not Norton, has been used for the teaching of operating
the apparatus to reproduce the edited material in the forward and
the reverse directions. Secondly, as the examiner has pointed
out, the indication of having a scroll feature in Norton would
have suggested to an artisan in the recording and reproduction
arts that the apparatus disclosed by Norton was operable in the
forward as well as the reverse direction.
Appellants further argue (brief at page 7) that “there is
nothing in the Rayner reference that implies the Edit List
defines a linked list of storage locations on a storage medium
used for storing the source files. As such, the Rayner EDL lacks
two key aspects of Appellants’ claimed routing table.” However,
we note that the examiner does not rely on the Rayner reference
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007