Appeal No. 97-1167 Page 7
Application No. 08/475,062
1993). With this in mind, we analyze the examiner’s
rejections.
The examiner rejects claims 3, 11, 13, and 15 as obvious
over Admission in view of Ottesen and Shimotashiro. At the
outset, we observe that the examiner fails to map the language
of the claims to the disclosures of the Admission or
references. Instead, he begins the rejection by
characterizing Admission as follows.
On lines 7-16 of page 1, applicant admits that
“there is currently in progress the introduction of
a signal processing method ... which is a
combination of partial response equalization and
maximum likelihood decoding". For dependent claims
11 and 13, [Admission] employs a magnetoresistance
effect head as a reproducing transducer and uses a
magnetic disk as a recording medium. (Final
Rejection at 5.)
He admits that Admission “neither measures second harmonic
distortion nor signal to noise ratio.” (Id.)
The examiner makes the following observation about
Ottesen.
Ottesen ... provides a bias servo loop for a
magneto- resistive head. FIR bandpass filter 20 and
RMS amplitude estimator 24 measure the second
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007