Appeal No. 95-3916
Application 08/008,292
Claims 33 through 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Preissler and Takagi.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 26
through 28 and 30 through 36.
According to the examiner (Answer, page 3)
Preissler discloses the invention substantially as
claimed. Preissler discloses that a system for
correcting data has an inner decoder which determines
whether or not the data is uncorrectable and the inner
decoder provides an error flag thereafter. The data is
then put into a buffer memory (2). Later, this data is
read out under the control of a control circuit (3) and
is supplied to a comparison circuit (8) (figure 2,
column 3 lines 39-64).
In rebuttal to appellants' argument (Brief, page 7) that
"Appellants' invention differs from Preissler being that in
Appellants' invention error free code blocks themselves are not
compared but check information codes are compared instead," the
examiner indicates (Answer, page 8) that
[a]lthough Preissler does not use the specific phrase
"comparing the check information codes", Preissler
teaches that check words are added in the recording of
the data words (column 1 lines 37-38). Preissler also
teaches that the data words are compared by a
comparison circuit (8). The feature of comparing the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007