Appeal No. 1998-0591
Application 08/538,517
characterized in that said control
means is arranged to control the drive
means so as to cause the relative angular
velocity to decrease substantially, but
less than inversely with the increase of
distance (r), as said location is moved
from said innermost track to said outermost
track; and to cause the linear velocity to
increase substantially, but less than
proportionally with the increase of
distance (r), as said location is moved
from said innermost track to said outermost
track.
Opinion
The rejection of claims 12 and 13 as being anticipated by
Syracuse cannot be sustained.
The rejection of claims 12-20 and 22-31 as not being
supported by an enabling disclosure also cannot be sustained.
A reversal of the rejection over prior art should not be
construed as an affirmative indication that the appellants’
claims are patentable over prior art. We address only the
positions and rationale as set forth by the examiner and on
which the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal is
based.
The Anticipation Rejection
According to claim 12, the control means controls the
drive means such that with increasing distance “r” from the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007