Appeal No. 1997-3933
Application No. 08/193,179
The examiner has not shown that the admitted prior art teaches or fairly suggests
the storage or use of servo information to control the arcuate track
reader/writer/system/method. The examiner has not relied upon any of the other prior art
references to teach or suggest the storage and use of servo information with respect to
arcuate tracks. Appellants argue that none of the other prior art references applied by the
examiner teach or suggest the servoing technique for arcuate data tracks. (See answer at
page 11.) We agree with appellants. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 29, 41, 42, 45, 50 and 56 since each contains limitations to the
servoing technique.
Additionally, with respect to claims 1 and 29, we find that van Slageren does not
teach or suggest the storage and use of servo data, but rather merely teaches that it is
desirable to reduce variations in tension and stretch of the tape.
With respect to claims 50-59 and Hertrich, appellants argue that Hertrich does not
teach or suggest the use or storage of servo control information in the arcuate information
tracks. (See brief at page 17.) We agree with appellants.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007