frequency shown in Figure 2B [answer, page 3].
Appellants respond that the examiner is incorrect
because the wobble frequency of Figure 2B interferes with the
EFM frequency band because (1) the wobble signal produces
second harmonics which may interfere with the EFM signal, and
(2) the component of the wobble frequency has a bandwidth of
+/- 50 kHz [brief, page 4]. The examiner basically questions
the accuracy of the statements made by appellants in support
of their position [answer, pages 4-5]. Appellants respond
that their assertions represent properties of signals which
would be clearly recognized by the person skilled in this art
[reply brief].
We agree with appellants’ position for the same
reasons advanced by them as amplified by the following
comments. If the examiner is going to rely on prior art as
admitted by an applicant for a rejection on anticipation, he
must accept the prior art exactly as offered by the applicant.
The admitted prior art relied on by the examiner includes the
corresponding description of this prior art in the
specification. The specification describes the wobble
frequency of the second area as being 180 kHz which “means
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007