Appeal No. 1999-0043
Application 08/599,875
input/output path to the head closer to the target position in
a radial direction. Since each head in Gilovich reads
one-half the tracks, the control only switches to the head
that can service that track. The only way it is meaningful to
say there is switching to a head that is closer to a target
position is if there are some positions which can be read by
either head, which is not the case in Gilovich. The Examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, and 8 is reversed.
The references to Mizunoe and Kitahara do not cure the
deficiencies of Daniels and Gilovich with respect to the
rejection of parent claims 1, 4, and 8. Moreover, we find
that Mizunoe does not disclose three regions or spacing the
heads by a distance corresponding to one of the three regions
as recited in the dependent claims and that such spacing would
not be inherent as stated by the Examiner. We further find
that Kitahara does not disclose dividing the recording medium
into three equally spaced intervals in a circumferential
direction along a single radius. For these reasons, the
rejections of claims 2, 3, 5-7, and 9-13 are reversed.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007