Appeal No. 97-3926 Application 08/481,091 its merits and conclude that the examiner's construction of the language in question is strained and unreasonable. Given its broadest reasonable construction, the phrase "simultaneous head cleaning and playing of recorded signals" requires that at least part of the head cleaning operation and the playing of recorded signals occur at the same instant in time, which does not occur in Siddiq. Claim 35 also recites another limitation which appellants argue (Brief at 7) is not disclosed in Siddiq, i.e., the requirement that the second set of instructions be different from the first set of instructions. The examiner addressed this limitation as follows: Figure 5 shows [diagnostic/instructional] segments 6 and 34. First of all the fact that [they] are separated by cleaning and polishing segments clearly shows that they are different. If the[y] were not different the[re] would be no reason to provide separation. Secondly, Siddiq provides different numbers to further distinguish the two segments from each other. Thirdly, column 4, lines 49-52 states the following: "The use of separated diagnostic/instructional segments 6, 34 maybe [sic, Siddiq's error] useful to provide the user with an almost instantaneous indication of cleaning effectiveness using before and after views". [Answer at 7-8.] The foregoing facts are not sufficient to establish that the information contained in segments 6 and 34 is inherently, i.e., necessarily, different, as is required to establish - 8 -Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007