Appeal No. 95-4547
Application No. 08/097,697
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that while appellant chooses not to
argue the rejection of claims 8 and 15 through 18 [brief, bottom of
page 1], this may only be interpreted to mean that appellant is
willing to let them stand or fall together with the claims argued.
The examiner may not presume [answer, bottom of page 6] that
appellant acquiesces with respect to the rejection of these claims.
We have carefully considered the evidence before us
including, inter alia, the arguments of appellant and the examiner
and we conclude therefrom that the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the instant claimed
subject matter. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 1 through 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the evidence
provided by the applied references and the examiner's rationale.
The examiner's position is that Ohtake teaches the claimed
subject matter but for the storing of servo signals of at least the
entire prior one rotation of the disc, means for detecting mechanical
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007