Appeal No. 1997-2656
Application No. 07/907,472
argument for separate patentability, nor does it point out the errors in the examiner's
rejection.
Appellants argue that the brief set forth the argument that the reasons underlying
the rejection of dependent claim 3 have never been fully set out by the examiner. (See
Request for Rehearing at pages 5-6.) Appellants argue that the examiner has not met
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. After further review of
appellants' brief at pages 11-19, 33 and 34, we agree with appellants that the
arguments under the heading "[t]he Claims are Improperly Grouped" include various
arguments directed to the separate patentability of the claims, their distinction over the
applied prior art, and the lack of establishment of a
prima facie case of obviousness by the examiner. Therefore, we will reconsider the
arguments made at pages 11-19, 33 and 34 of the brief as clarified in the request for
rehearing.
Appellants argue that with respect to claim 3, the examiner has not addressed
the limitation/concept of identifying a plurality of different boundary addresses between
the audio and video storage regions. (See brief at pages 11-12.) The examiner
maintained that figure 1 of appellants' disclosure shows the concept of a boundary
address setting mode and also the concept of using different memory configurations as
shown in figures 1(a) - 1(c). The examiner concludes that combination would have
clearly suggested the boundary setting concept. (See answer at page 4.) While we
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007