Appeal No. 1999-0225
Application No. 08/563,188
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief have
not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Appellants’ arguments in response to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1, rather
than attacking the combinability of the applied Schnorf and Lang
references, instead focus on the contention that the prior art does
not teach or suggest all of the limitations set forth in the claim.
Initially, Appellants contend (Brief, page 7) that, contrary to the
Examiner’s position, Schnorf lacks a disclosure of a tape recording
and reproducing means for data in a digital format, as well as
lacks a teaching of a second input/output means.
After reviewing the Schnorf reference in light of the
arguments of record, we find neither of these arguments of
Appellants to be persuasive. As indicated at page 8 of the Answer,
the Examiner has identified the “TAPE” unit which is clearly in the
digital processing area of Schnorf as corresponding to the claimed
digital data recorder and reproducer. We also agree with the
Examiner that the network interface 23a in Schnorf which provides a
separate communication path 23b to network devices (Schnorf, column
4, lines 13-15) constitutes a “second input/output means” as
claimed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007