Appeal No. 1998-2476
Application No. 08/074,485
transducer or the medium, or on both.” Appellants respond,
brief at pages 11 and 12, that the phrase in question covers
six different situations regarding the movement of the
respective data read/write device and the moving medium. With
respect to claim 124, the examiner asserts, final rejection at
page 4, that it is “indefinite because it declares, on lines
2-3, that ‘the data read/write device is one of a plurality of
. . . devices’. This description lacks a proper antecedent,
since independent claim 114 had the limitation to ‘a data
read/write device’.” Appellants respond, brief at page 16,
that “it is submitted that claim 114 [on which claim 124
depends] does not recite a single data read/write device as
apparently alleged by the Examiner, but merely recites a data
read/write device.”
Also, with respect to claim 124, the examiner asserts,
id., that “lines 3-4 . . . define ‘data read/write devices
disposed in a regular two-dimensional arrangement in a plane’.
This claim is indefinite if there are only two such devices,
since three points are required to define a plane.”
Appellants respond, brief at 17 and 18, that “claim 124 does
not recite that the plurality of data read/write devices
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007