Appeal No. 1998-2713
Application No. 08/583,295
page 12) that “Abbott does not teach or even suggest to
calibrate the gain control circuit, and Abbott does not
‘inherently’ disclose the calibration process of the present
invention.” We agree. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claims 10 and 11 is reversed.
Turning next to claim 16, the examiner indicates (answer,
page 5) that “the reference shows a generic calibration
system” in response to appellants’ argument (brief, page 13)
that “Abbott does not disclose appellant’s [sic, appellants’]
iterative method for calibrating the settings of the sequence
detector.” In the absence of a description of a calibration
method for a sequence detector in Abbott, we agree with
appellants’ argument. It follows that the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
rejection of claim 16 is reversed.
Turning lastly to the obviousness rejection of claim 14,
the appellants repeat the above-noted “error values” argument
(brief, page 14), whereas the examiner states (answer, page 6)
that “the reference implicitly, if not expressly, teaches
recursive calibration of a disc recovery circuit using . . .
time correction elements.” In spite of such teachings in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007