Appeal No. 97-0610
Application No. 08/346,689
would have been obvious to include a data type
discriminator as taught by Moriyama in a system
such as Cunningham as a further means in which to
optimize the data recovery.
Appellant argues that Moriyama discloses a “single error
correction process (ECC),” and that Cunningham recognizes “the
inherent limitations of using ECC for correcting errors that
occur when reading data from a data storage disk” (Brief,
page 6). Appellant’s arguments are correct, but the rejection
is not based upon the substitution of the ECC circuit as
taught by Moriyama into the error correction process of
Cunningham. 2
As indicated supra, the examiner is only relying on the
Moriyama teaching that different types of data require
different error recovery procedures. If a reasonable
suggestion has been made that different error recovery
procedures be used for different types of data, then
2The test for obviousness is not whether the features of
a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference. Nor is it that the
claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or
all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to the
artisan. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007