Appeal No. 1999-1096
Application No. 08/556,746
the rejection of claims 1, 17, and their dependents, claims 5,
10, 11, 16, 18, 21, and 24.
As to independent claim 48 and its dependent claim, 49,
appellants assert (Brief, page 13) that:
According to paragraph 2 of the final Office Action,
these claims are rejected only over Takahashi in view
of Mankovitz though, in the previous Office Action,
Yoshimura was added under §103. Since it is unclear to
Appellants precisely which references are being used to
reject these claims, argument will be made with respect
to Yoshimura in the event that the Examiner intended
its use.
However, we find nothing in the Answer, the Final Rejection, or
the Office Action just prior to the Final Rejection indicating
the addition of Yoshimura for rejecting claims 48 and 49. The
rejection was and continues to be over Takahashi and Mankovitz.
As appellants' sole argument is directed to Yoshimura, they have
failed to point out any deficiency in the applied combination.
Accordingly, we will affirm the rejection of claims 48 and 49.
Furthermore, appellants state (Brief, page 5) that claims 35
through 41 are to stand or fall with, claims 48 and 49.
Consistent therewith, appellants have presented no arguments as
to the separate patentability of claims 35 through 41. Since we
have affirmed the rejection of claims 48 and 49, we will likewise
affirm the rejection of claims 35 through 41.
Regarding claim 20, Henmi teaches identifying portions of a
tape by program information and index numbers, not by images or
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007