Appeal No. 1995-1052
Application No. 07/944,562
this information to record additional information therein. (Hashimoto at col. 4.) The
examiner has not identified anywhere in Hashimoto where portions of tracks are used
to store additional information. Rather, Hashimoto uses only completely vacant tracks to
record additional information and if further information remains, then the next completely
vacant track is accessed and information recorded therein.
The examiner maintains that the combination of Hashimoto and Roth teaches and
suggests the invention as recited in claim 13. We disagree with the examiner. Here, the
examiner maintains that his rejection and interpretation of the prior art is “[a]ccording to the
interpretation of the claim language as described above.” (See answer at page 7.) As
discussed above, we disagree with the examiner’s interpretation of the claimed invention,
and the examiner’s discounting of appellant’s claim limitations and not according
patentable weight thereto does not treat the claimed invention as a whole. Therefore,
since the combination of Hashimoto and Roth does not teach or fairly suggest the invention
as recited in claim 13, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent claim 13 and its
dependent claims 14-16. Independent claim 17 contains similar limitations, therefore, we
will not sustain the rejection of claim 17 and its dependent claims 18 and 19.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007