Appeal No. 1997-2656
Application No. 07/907,472
prima facie case of obviousness that the combination of teachings would have
included a display of the selection. (See answer at page 4.) We agree with the
examiner, and do not find that appellants have rebutted the examiner's line of
reasoning and prima facie case. With respect to the underlying concepts, appellants
have identified neither how the "underlying concepts" are present in the language of the
claim nor how they distinguish over the combination of the admitted prior art and
Yoshida. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
In item (6) with respect to claim 6, appellants argue that the argument at pages
15-16 of the brief sets forth arguments for separate patentability. (See Request for
Rehearing at page 10.) We agree with appellants. Appellants argue that the audio and
video data stored in addresses starting from opposite ends of the memory towards
each other. (See brief at page 15.) The examiner maintains that "the choice of which
comes first the video or the audio is clearly an arbitrary engineering design choice and
as such it would have been obvious." (See answer at page 4.) From our understanding
of the examiner's statement of the rejection, the examiner has not addressed the
limitations of the claims. From our review of the admitted prior art and Yoshida, neither
teaches the filling of the memory from opposite ends. Therefore, the examiner has not
set forth a prima facie case of obviousness, and we will not sustain the rejection of
claim 6 and its dependent claim 7. (Therefore, we have not addressed item (7) in the
Request.)
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007