Appeal No. 1998-2479
Application 08/419,512
memory memorizes in advance certain relationships between certain parameters later
utilized by the MPU for correction of focus offset errors. The discussion at column 12,
lines 19 through 57 indicate that the tables shown there are derived “on the basis of the
result of measurement of the data at the time of fabricating the optical pickup device.”
Lines 54 through 56. It is thus clear that this reference meets the functional language at
the end of the nonvolatile memory means clause and that such external measurement
means obviously was utilized in the measurement determination just discussed with
respect to the fabrication of the optical pickup device. As such, they would be
individually determined for the actual device in question encompassed by the claim.
We also do not agree with appellants' view that the data stored in the memory
126 is not a compensatory value as claimed. The argument at the bottom of page 8 of
the brief is misplaced because a discrete compensatory value is not recited in the
claim. Only a compensatory value corresponding to differences of servocharacteristics
is recited. In accordance with the arguments presented at page 9 of the brief, the claim
merely requires “a” compensatory value and the claim does not recite restrictively that
only one compensatory value or that a single compensatory value is necessarily recited.
The claim does not exclude the capability of the reference to store plural compensatory
values, and since it teaches a plurality stored, it obviously stores “a” compensatory
value. The latter arguments at page 11 of the brief go well beyond the broad scope of
the subject matter recited in claim 1 on appeal. Because we remain unpersuaded of
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007