Appeal No. 95-3290
Application 08/062,156
rejection, there is no prima facie showing of the obviousness
of claim 7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
claim 7, the rejection of claim 9 which depends therefrom, or
the rejection of claim 11 which is grouped with claim 7.
Independent claim 12 is similar to claim 7 and also
recites that the entry point has a logical block number lower
than the desired logical data block number. The rejection of
claim 12 fails for the same reasons discussed above with
respect to claim 7. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claim 12 nor of claims 13 and 14 which depend
therefrom. Independent claim 15 is grouped with claim 12 so
that we also do not sustain the rejection of claim 15.
We now consider the rejection of independent claim 1.
The examiner applies Klumpp and Osterlund in the same manner
discussed above and additionally applies Usui for counting
indications from a beginning of tape. The examiner asserts
that it would have been obvious to locate data sectors in
Klumpp by counting indications of sector boundaries as taught
by Usui [answer, page 6]. Appellant makes several of the same
arguments discussed above and argues that Usui does not
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007