Appeal No. 1997-3933
Application No. 08/193,179
With respect to both rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103, the examiner has
the initial burden of setting forth a prima facie case of anticipation and
obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Here, we find that the examiner has set forth
neither a prima facie case of anticipation nor obviousness of the claimed subject matter.
The examiner relies solely upon the teachings of the admitted prior art to teach the
storage of information in an arcuate pattern on a memory medium. Appellants argue that
this admission does not address problems in this prior art of a lack of servo control
information therewith to control the speed and/or position of the transducer. (See brief at
pages 7-8.) We agree with appellants. The examiner maintains that the servo data is
merely non-functional descriptive material or an intended use of the data. (See answer at
page 4.) We disagree with the examiner. The servo information stored on the arcuate
tracks is functional material which is used by the control means to adjust the operation of
the reader. The examiner has not shown that the admitted prior art teaches “said data
including servo signals for causing alignment of an arcuately-scanning tape drive
transducer with arcuate tracks on said magnetic tape” as
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007