Appeal No. 2005-2320
Application 09/778,895
the watermark unit, and if we assume for the sake of argument
that it determines whether the output data from the disk 8 is
encrypted data, then a decoder1 to extract digital audio data from
the decrypted data is not located in Matsumoto. Accordingly, the
anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3 through 5, 7 through 11 and
13 is reversed because each and every claimed element is not
located in Matsumoto.
For all of the reasons expressed supra, and for the
additional reason that the record is silent as to a reason why
the skilled artisan would have attributed any other decoding
functions to the decoder 25, the obviousness rejection of claims
2, 6, 12 and 14 is reversed.
1 Matsumoto is silent as to the decoder 25 performing more than a
single decoding function.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007