Appeal No. 1998-2479
Application 08/419,512
standard values referenced in these various locations are not determined within the
disclosure in Horie per se and therefore clearly have been previously determined and
placed in the memory 11. On the basis of these specific teachings, we make reference
again to the case law just listed as to how we believe the artisan would interpret such
teachings within 35 U.S.C. § 102. Note the contrasting manual approach at column 1,
lines 50-54. Therefore, we sustain this rejection.
Lastly, we turn to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 24 through 26
over Hofer. As with the earlier rejections, appellants argue only the nonvolatile memory
means features. Appellants' brief indicates certain similarities between these three
independent claims 24 through 26. For purposes of the nonvolatile memory means
clause, claim 24 merely recites that the values placed in the nonvolatile memory means
have been determined through the use of external measurement means. Claims 25
and 26 extend this reasoning by indicating that this is done when or after the nonvolatile
memory is incorporated into the disc apparatus.
We do not agree with appellants' views expressed at pages 19 and 20 of the
brief that the examiner has effectively ignored these latter limitations of these three
independent claims on appeal. We are unpersuaded of appellants' views that the offset
values discussed in this reference can not be stored in the ROM 38 despite the
teachings at the bottom of column 5, lines 63 and 64 that the offset value “is stored in
RAM 36 or ROM 38.” Appellants' arguments belie the plain teaching of the reference.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007