Appeal No. 2004-0507
Application No. 09/476,862
which synchronization is being performed. We find this
particular synchronization feature, i.e., synchronizing by the
use of reproduced data to obtain a reproduction clock, not taught
or suggested by either of the applied Shinada and Landry
references. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, since
the Examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3-6 and
9-12 is not sustained.
In summary, with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of appealed claims 3-12, we have sustained the
rejection of claims 7 and 8, but have not sustained the rejection
of claims 3-6 and 9-12. Therefore, the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 3-12 is affirmed-in-part.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007