Appeal No. 97-0260
Application 08/287,477
arguments to persuade
us against the suggested combination. Therefore, we conclude
that the obviousness rejection of claim 1 over Lewis and Janz
is sustained. Appellants have elected that claims 3, 8 to 10,
15 and 16 stand and fall together with claim 1 and have not
argued them separately. Consequently, the obviousness
rejection of claims 3, 8 to 10, 15 and 16 over Lewis and Janz
is also sustained.
With respect to claim 2, “The Examiner takes the position
that Lewis is a low bandwidth servo writing system which
writes high-density quad-burst servo amplitude patterns with a
complex frequency pattern” [answer, page 4]. Appellants
present no factual argument to rebut the Examiner’s position
other than making a conclusory statement that “Neither Lewis
or Janz disclose ... information writing steps” [brief, page
24]. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim
2 over Lewis and Janz.
With respect to claim 11, the Examiner believes that “the
averaging of signal inputs to establish a reference is a
standard engineering technique well known in the art” [answer,
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007