Appeal No. 97-0260
Application 08/287,477
disk drive [column 2, lines 40 to 43] which, together with the
prior combination of Lewis and Janz, meets the limitations of
claim 13. Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 13 [brief,
page 29] do not offer any factual arguments to controvert this
rejection. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 13 over Lewis, Janz and Sidman.
With respect to claim 14, the Examiner identifies in
Sidman col. 2, lines 54-66 as a system “for duplicating servo
information from a dedicated servo disk onto other disks that
requires switching to a higher bandwidth servo system than
used for writing to the dedicated disk” [answer, page 4].
Appellants offer no arguments in rebuttal other than a
conclusory statement that “Neither[,] Lewis, Janz nor Sidman
disclose or suggest that the direct access storage device
includes a high bandwidth servo system used duplicating the
written servo information onto others of said data storage
surfaces” [brief, pages 29 to 30]. Consequently, the
obviousness rejection of claim 14 over Lewis, Janz and Sidman
is sustained.
Rejection of claims 17 and 20 over Lewis, Janz and Oliver
With respect to claim 17, the Examiner adds Oliver to the
-13-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007