Appeal No. 1998-0598
Application No. 08/278,864
for the sake of argument that it would have been obvious to
the skilled artisan to use a partial response encoder in
Shimpuku, we are still left with the absence of a teaching or
a suggestion in the combined teachings of modeling an impulse
response between the recording system and the reproduction
system based on the synchronization signal data encoded by the
partial response encoder. Thus, the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 5 through 7 and 10 is reversed.
The examiner is correct (paper number 11, page 4) that
“Ushirokawa discloses the method of least squares [column 2,
lines 37 through 40] and a ROM [column 8, lines 36 through 54]
for storing coefficient matrices . . . for the purpose of
providing coefficient control for determining the tracking
property,” but appellants are likewise correct (Brief, page
18) that “the combination of Ushirokawa with Shimpuku and
Kanota would not suggest the use of a synchronizing signal
data part in modeling an impulse response between a recording
system and a reproducing system.” Accordingly, the
obviousness rejection of claims 2, 5, 8, 9 and 11 is reversed.
With respect to claim 3, the examiner states (paper
number 11, page 6) that “Burden et al. discloses using L U
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007