Appeal No. 97-0610
Application No. 08/346,689
appellant’s assumption (Brief, pages 6 through 9) that
Cunningham would turn to a least favored data recovery
procedure (i.e., ECC) when there are better data recovery
procedures among the stored plurality of data recovery
procedures is without merit. Thus, we agree with the examiner
that the skilled artisan would have known from the combined
teachings of Cunningham and Moriyama that “different types of
data require different levels of recovery,” and that the data
recovery level should be selected “according to the type of
data which is being read” (Answer, pages 3 and 4).
Based upon the foregoing, the obviousness rejection of
claim 1 is sustained. The obviousness rejection of claims 6,
11 and 12 is likewise sustained because of appellant’s
grouping of the claims (Brief, page 5). The obviousness
rejection of claims 3 through 5, 8 through 10, 14, 16, 17, 18,
20, 22 and 23, is sustained because the applied references
would have suggested to the skilled artisan to select a data
recovery procedure from a plurality of data recovery
procedures based upon the type of data on the disk. The
obviousness rejection of claims 7 and 19 is sustained because
Moriyama discloses (Figure 6) reception of a selection code,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007