Appeal No. 96-0663
Application No. 08/253,618
steps such features are intended to correspond, suggests that the
only deficiency of Nigam is a failure to disclose magnetic
recording with optical servo tracks or a dual actuator system or
detecting whether a high density or low density disk is present
and concludes that Williams’ disclosure of an optical servo
track, utilizing a dual actuator configuration, and that
Bartlett’s means to detect a type of disk resident in the disk
drive, taken together with Nigam, would have made the subject
matter of claims 14, 17 and 18 obvious, within the meaning of 35
U.S.C. 103.
Similarly, the examiner concludes that the combination of
Nigam and Bartlett, taken together with claim 22 (which depends
from claims 16 and 21) of Williams would have made the instant
claimed subject matter obvious with regard to an obviousness-type
double patenting rejection.
Appellants appear to argue that prior art describing
structure cannot be properly applied against a method claim. If
this is what appellants mean, we do not agree that this is always
the case. There may very well be instances where the mere
disclosure of a certain structure would clearly suggest a
particular method. But, clearly, the instant case is not such an
instance.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007