Appeal No. 97-0260
Application 08/287,477
page 4]. In our opinion, this does not meet the limitation of
claim 11: “averaging of burst positions to create ... servo
information”
(claim 11, lines 3 to 4). For that reason, even though
Appellants have again not offered any substantial rebuttal, we
do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 11 over
Lewis and Janz.
Regarding claim 12, the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case because the Examiner has not pointed out a
way to meet the limitation: “moving and detecting steps
include ... radial band of the disk surface” (claim 12, lines
3 to 6). Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of
claim 12 over Lewis and Janz.
With respect to claim 18, the Examiner has not
specifically addressed the limitations: “means responsive to
... timing information” (claim 18, lines 10 to 11) and “means
for ... using said timing information developed without
requiring the use of a clock track” (claim 18, lines 12 to
15). In the absence of a prima facie case and in the light of
Appellants’ arguments [brief, pages 25 and 26], we reverse the
-11-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007