Appeal No. 1996-3078
Application 08/184,417
For example, in the patent to Yoshida et al. (4,420,828) cited by appellants as prior art, a data
processing system and method for storing both spiral and concentric tracks of data on a single disk is
disclosed. See at least column 1, lines 38 to 42 and Figure 3 of Yoshida et al.. In
addition, in the patent to Hedlund et al. (4,138,741) cited by appellants as prior art, a data processing
system and method for storing both spiral and concentric tracks of data on a single disk is also
disclosed. See at least column 2, lines 45 to 49 and Figure 1 of Hedlund et al..
In our view, the examiner should consider whether it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine the feature of storing and designating concentric and spiral data tracks on a single
disk to the admitted prior art data processing system and method in order to allow for improved data
storage and access as taught by the admitted prior art. By storing and accessing text files in a
concentric format, maximum utilization may be made of available memory space, and by storing and
accessing video files in a spiral format, video data may be located quickly during a read operation. See
admitted prior art at page 3 of the specification. We do not make a rejection under 37 C.F.R. §
1.196(b) nor prejudge the issue because any record in support of or against any such rejection should
be initiated by the examiner and not by us.
Accordingly, we remand this application to the examiner for consideration of whether any
rejections are appropriate under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The file wrapper in this case should reflect either
why the claims are patentable over the art of record or the basis for any appropriate rejection.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007