Appeal No. 1998-2479
Application 08/419,512
not dispositive of the issues since the claim merely broadly requires a compensatory
value corresponding to differences of servo characteristics. The actual language of the
claim is broader than appellants' arguments and clearly is met by the teachings of the
ROM 93 in Minami. Therefore, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5,
7 and 10 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Minami is
sustained.
Turning next to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7 and 10 through 14 as being
anticipated by Horie under 35 U.S.C. § 102, it is also sustained and only independent
claim 1 on appeal again is argued. Once again, appellants present arguments only as
to the nonvolatile memory means clause. We agree with the examiner's assessment
that ROM 11 of the embodiments shown in Figures 1, 6, 7 and 10 corresponds to the
claimed nonvolatile memory means claimed. As noted by the examiner, the discussion
at column 3, lines 56 through 62 indicates that ROM 11 stores “a predetermined
standard value” as a base starting point for use by the CPU 8 for determining
the ultimate offset correction signals. This predetermined standard value is referenced
in the discussion at column 2, lines 1 through 13 as well as the last sentence of the
abstract. Similar references to this standard value are made at column 4, lines 38
through 40; column 5, lines 59 through 61; the discussion in the entire paragraph at
column 6, lines 36 through 50; the discussion at column 7, lines 21 through 25 and the
discussion at column 8, lines 31 through 33. It is thus apparent that the predetermined
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007