Appeal No. 2001-1847
Application No. 08/861,157
term, displacement, for other information suggests that
displacement differs from synchronization. Accordingly, we agree
with the examiner that Greenberg discloses the first subpart of
the data information containing all of the synchronization
information, and, thus, that claim 1 is anticipated by Greenberg.
We reach a different conclusion for the obviousness
rejections. As to the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 17 through
26, the examiner explains (Answer, page 4) that although
Greenberg fails to teach the second subpart of the data region
including a data address mark, Gold discloses such a mark. The
examiner contends that "[i]t would have been obvious ... to
modify the teachings of Greenberg et al to include the teachings
of Gold, motivation being to provide an improved disk format as
set forth in col. 2 lines 45-48 of Gold."
After reviewing the referenced portion of Gold we find no
nexus between the inclusion of a data address mark and the
"improved disk format." In fact, we find no suggestion or
motivation in either reference to add the claimed data address
mark to the second subpart data region of Greenberg.
Consequently, we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 2, 3, and 17 through 26 over Greenberg in view of Gold.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007