Appeal No. 97-3926
Application 08/481,091
its merits and conclude that the examiner's construction of
the language in question is strained and unreasonable. Given
its broadest reasonable construction, the phrase "simultaneous
head cleaning and playing of recorded signals" requires that
at least part of the head cleaning operation and the playing
of recorded signals occur at the same instant in time, which
does not occur in Siddiq.
Claim 35 also recites another limitation which appellants
argue (Brief at 7) is not disclosed in Siddiq, i.e., the
requirement that the second set of instructions be different
from the first set of instructions. The examiner addressed
this limitation as follows:
Figure 5 shows [diagnostic/instructional] segments 6 and
34. First of all the fact that [they] are separated by
cleaning and polishing segments clearly shows that they
are different. If the[y] were not different the[re]
would be no reason to provide separation. Secondly,
Siddiq provides different numbers to further distinguish
the two segments from each other. Thirdly, column 4,
lines 49-52 states the following: "The use of separated
diagnostic/instructional segments 6, 34 maybe [sic,
Siddiq's error] useful to provide the user with an almost
instantaneous indication of cleaning effectiveness using
before and after views". [Answer at 7-8.]
The foregoing facts are not sufficient to establish that the
information contained in segments 6 and 34 is inherently,
i.e., necessarily, different, as is required to establish
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007