Appeal No. 1998-0601
Application 08/225,322
areas. Although these references are directed to overcoming
the same problem as addressed by Appellant, as argued by
Appellant (Br8-10), they only show stopping the writing
operation, not operating the optical pickup at a reduced power
level corresponding to the level suitable for reading data.
The Examiner argues that references teach reducing the power
level to below a write level (EA4). This is true, but what is
missing in the references is some teaching of reducing the
power level rather than just interrupting the recording
operation (Yoshimoto), cutting off the recording signal
(Maeda), cutting off the laser (Ishida), or stopping the input
of data (Horie). For this reason, we conclude that the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. The rejections of claims 1, 2, 4-6, 11, 12,
and 15 based on the APA and one of Yoshimoto, Ishida, Horie,
or Maeda are reversed.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 over APA and Miura
Claims 1, 2, and 4-6 are grouped to stand or fall
together (Br5). Claim 1 is analyzed as representative.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007