Appeal No. 96-3234
Application 08/184,446
1982); In re Angstadt, 537 F.2d 498, 504, 190 USPQ 214, 219
(CCPA 1976); and In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 677, 185 USPQ
152, 153 (CCPA 1975). The Examiner points out that the
claims recite "a predetermined rule." The Examiner argues
that the specification does not disclose the nature of the
predetermined rule or how one would be able to make a device
that operates according to a predetermined rule.
Appellant provides Watkinson, a prior art reference,
which shows examples of expressions used in interleaving
blocks of error-encoded CD data. In the reply brief on page
3, Appellant argues that the reference provides an example of
the arrangement of data blocks constructed in accordance with
sample expressions. Appellant further points out that
Watkinson clearly states that P (C1) and Q (C2) redundancy
symbols used as pointers are calculated by a known method of
polynomial division.
Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art can
make and use the recited address generating unit based upon "a
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007