Appeal No. 2002-1056
Application No. 08/772,888
illustration in Figure 2 of Birk along with the accompanying
description beginning at column 4, line 62.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert a failure of Birk
to disclose every limitation in independent claims 1-3 and 5-8 as
is required to support a rejection based on anticipation. At
pages 8 and 9 of the Brief and pages 4-6 of the Reply Brief,
Appellants’ arguments focus on the contention that, contrary to
the Examiner’s interpretation of the disclosure of Birk, there is
no disclosure of the reduction of access time of the image data
having a relatively large amount of data that is stored in the
outer peripheral region of the disk as claimed. In Appellants’
view, Birk actually increases the access time of image data that
would otherwise be stored in outer peripheral disk regions since,
in Birk’s described storage technique, such data is partitioned
and stored in outer region and inner region track pairs requiring
multiple accesses to retrieve the data.
After reviewing the Birk reference in light of the arguments
of record, we are in general agreement with Appellants’ position
as expressed in the Briefs. The relevant portion of each of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007