Appeal No. 2006-1970
Application No. 10/014,392
then recorded at the positions 14T while sync signal of a length
of 14T is recorded at the heads of all of the sync frames and
data (col. 6, lines 41-51). Therefore, whether the pre-pits are
recorded prior to recording the data or afterwards, the pre-
information is recorded as a part of the sync frame in an
interleaved manner, which in turn, determines any readout errors
that may be related to synchronization problems as a part of data
recording errors. Thus, considering the features encompassed by
claim 1 and our analysis of Kudora and based on the principles
outlined above, we find that the Examiner has properly
corresponded the pre-information recorded within the sync frames
to the claimed reference fields which may be analyzed to
determine whether a readout error has happened.
In view of the analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
met the burden of providing a prima facie case of anticipation as
Kudora teaches the method steps of claim 1. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of claims 1, 13 and 22 as well as claims 3,
10, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 26 and 31, which are argued by
Appellant as one group rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over
Kudora.
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of the claims
Appellant argues that nothing in Kudora describes the
features recited in claims 2, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 27-30 related to
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007