Appeal No. 1997-3933
Application No. 08/193,179
With respect to independent claims 23 and 35, these claims do not include a
similar limitation with respect to the servoing technique. Appellants argue that Sokolik
does not teach or suggest that the tracks extend transverse to the longitudinal center
line of the tape as required by claims 23 and 35. We agree with appellants. The
examiner maintains that “[a]pplying the data structure depicted in Figure 1 of Sokolik, in
combination with the other servo teachings would yield the claimed five field data
structure.” (See answer at page 6.) We disagree with the examiner. From the examiner’s
explanation of the fields of Sokolik in the final rejection at page 7, he has reversed the
direction of the tracks whereas Sokolik teaches the storage of the track identification along
the longitudinal center line of the track which is parallel to the side of the tape and not
transverse thereto. Moreover, the examiner maintains that “there would have been no
critical difference in the placement of the data in any of these different positions on the
tape.” (See final rejection at page 7.) We disagree with the examiner’s unsupported
conclusion. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of independent claims 23 and 35
and their respective dependent claims.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007