Appeal No. 1999-2824
Application 08/481,408
Limitation (e) of claim 45 essentially corresponds to the
feature control limitation of claim 43, which is not taught by
Lett. Hatakenaka is applied by the Examiner to teach altering
the data arrangement for high speed tape tracking (EA5-6). We
find that Hatakenaka does not cure the deficiency of Lett with
respect to the missing feature control limitation.
Accordingly, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claims 45 and 46
is reversed.
Claim 47
Limitation (a) of claim 47 essentially corresponds to the
feature control limitation of claim 43, which is not taught by
Lett. Claim 47 does not recite altering the data arrangement
for high speed tape tracking and, therefore, it is not clear
why the Examiner applies Hatakenaka. Claim 47 includes the
step of "generating a freeze frame display using local memory
associated with said video device"; i.e., the VRR video
feature function performed by the video device is a freeze
frame. The Examiner finds that the feature of generating a
freeze frame display is inherently present in the proposed
combination of Lett and Hatakenaka since conventional VCRs,
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007