Ex parte HANSON - Page 2




          Appeal No. 97-0610                                                          
          Application No. 08/346,689                                                  


               Claim 18 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it              
          reads as follows:                                                           
               18.  An adaptive data recovery apparatus for a data                    
          storage disk, the data recovery apparatus comprising:                       
               memory means for storing a plurality of data recovery                  
          routines;                                                                   
               selection means for selecting any of the plurality of                  
          data recovery routines in accordance with a type of data; and               
               control means, coupled to the selection and memory means,              
          for performing the selected data recovery routines to correct               
          an error when reading data from the data storage disk.                      
               The references relied on by the examiner are:                          
          Moriyama et al. (Moriyama)         4,654,853           Mar.  31,            
          1987                                                                        
          Cunningham et al. (Cunningham)     5,379,162           Jan.   3,            
          1995                                                                        
          (filed Aug. 19,                                                             
          1993)                                                                       
               Claims 1 through 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103               
          as being unpatentable over Cunningham in view of Moriyama.                  
               Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the                  
          respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.                     
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully considered the entire record before us,              
          and we will sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1,              


                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007