Appeal No. 96-1856
Application 08/193,324
Interpreting the language of claim 11 alone, the claim does
not recite that the movement of the head occurs to a remote
position relative to the previously recited first sector of a
track on a storage medium. Such language would have given the
examiner reason to interpret the overall claim in a manner
consistent as argued in the rejection. Therefore, appellants
correctly state at the top of page 6 of the brief on appeal
that a diagnostic track in the region 48 of Supino's Figure 1
cannot be said to be “a remote position relative to a storage
medium” as recited in claim 11 because “the spare sector is
necessarily located on the storage medium.” Since diagnostic
tracks 48 are on the magnetic disc 40 of Figure 2 of Supino,
they cannot be said to be remote relative to the entire
magnetic disc 40 itself.
Because we do not affirm the rejection of independent
claim 11, we must therefore also reverse the rejection of its
dependent claims 12-15.
Finally, we turn to the rejection of claims 1-3 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. The pertinent portion of claim 1 on appeal
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007