Appeal No. 1998-2579
Application 08/350,195
rates in a disk array using Zone Bit Recording. The examiner
views the Zone Bit Recording of Birk as the same thing as the
claimed rate staggering. The examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to the artisan to store the Lougher data as
taught by Birk [id., pages 6-7].
Appellants argue that the Zone Bit Recording technique
of Birk does not teach or suggest the rate staggering
technique of the claimed invention. Appellants also argue
that there is no suggestion or motivation for combining the
teachings of Lougher and Birk [brief, page 5]. The examiner
responds that the claimed rate staggering technique reads on
the conventional Zone Bit Recording technique of Birk [answer,
pages 8-9]. Appellants respond that the examiner has ignored
specific features of the claimed invention [reply brief].
We agree with appellants that the examiner has failed
to consider the specific language of the claims. The
examiner’s position fundamentally relies on his finding that
the Zoned Bit Recording of Birk is the same as the claimed
rate staggering technique. Appellants’ application uses the
term rate staggering in a very specific way, and we find that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007