Appeal No. 1996-3996
Application 08/250,578
The Examiner has not relied on any references for the rejection.
The Examiner objected to Appellant’s specification under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, for failing to provide an enabling disclosure. Claims 1 through 5 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, based upon the reasons set forth in the objection to
the specification.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or the Examiner, we make reference to
the brief and the answer for the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we disagree with the Examiner that
claims 1 through 5 are non-enabling under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We will reverse
the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for the reason set forth
infra.
The Examiner argues that the specification does not support the limitation “wherein said
predetermined track pitch is maintained in both standard and long play modes.” The Examiner
further reasons that recording every other revolution of the cylinder would not return the track
spacing to the same width as for the SP mode, and
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007