Appeal No. 2003-0779
Application 09/286,413
We consider first the rejection of claims 8-11 under the
first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. The rejection states that
“[t]he specification does not show ‘copying the data from the
replacement area to the defective area.’ None of the figures or
pages 4 and 5 show the use of recording the same data onto the
replacement area and then copying the data back into the
defective area of the disk as being claimed” [answer, page 4].
With respect to claims 10 and 11, appellant points to
portions of the application which are alleged to show the
invention of these claims. With respect to claims 8 and 9,
appellant argues that even though the specification does not
literally state that data is copied to the defective area, the
overall description of the invention makes it clear that the
defective areas are used to store the replacement data to form a
contiguous user-data area [brief, pages 6-8].
The examiner is not persuaded by appellant’s arguments.
The examiner again responds that there is no support for
recording the same data onto the replacement area and the
defective area of the disk [answer, page 6].
We will not sustain this rejection of the claims on
appeal for essentially the reasons argued by appellant in the
main brief. We agree with appellant that the description of the
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007