Appeal No. 1997-4447
Application No. 08/309,907
We have carefully reviewed our original opinion in light
of appellants’ request, but we find no point of law or fact
which we overlooked or misapprehended in arriving at our
decision even in light of appellants’ current arguments set
forth in the request for reconsideration. We find no error in
the analysis or logic set forth in our original opinion.
In a nutshell, we basically found in our original opinion
that the tracking error determinations in Koyama were a
sufficient indication to the artisan of the determination of a
kind of eccentricity as set forth in the preamble of the
claims on appeal and in the concluding portion of the
respective independent claims on appeal that we found
sufficient basis to affirm the examiner’s rejection of the
claims on appeal. At the time of our original opinion, we
were well aware that Koyama contains within its teachings
distinctions between a tracking error signal and an
eccentricity component determination. We, therefore, do not
consider so limiting the teachings of Koyama of a tracking
error signal as to exclude them from consideration of a
broadly defined method of “measuring the amount of
eccentricity” of an optical disk of the claims on appeal. We
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007