Appeal No. 1997-4447
Application No. 08/309,907
do not distinguish, as appellants apparently urge us to do,
the teachings of Koyama and the subject matter of the claims
on appeal on the mere basis of labels only. Our original
opinion did not indicate that the tracking error signal was
equivalent to the teaching in Koyama of an eccentricity
component but merely that the teachings of the determination
of the tracking error signal was a determination of a kind of
eccentricity to the extent broadly recited in the claims on
appeal.
The determination of the tracking error signal of
Koyama, as we outlined in our original opinion, provides a
determination of a calculated amount or extent of eccentricity
to the extent recited in the claims on appeal.
The examiner clearly found the subject matter of the
present claims on appeal to be unpatentable within 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 in contrast to those claims the examiner has allowed.
Those allowed claims are 1-8, 11, 13 and 16. The examiner has
thus parsed the claims to define a point of demarcation
between allowable and unpatentable subject matter.
In view of the foregoing, appellants’ request for
reconsideration is granted to the extent that we have in fact
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007