Appeal No. 1998-3390
Application No. 08/480,934
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Appellant argues that the combination of Wilkinson and the examiner’s well known
Table of Contents does not render the invention as recited in claims 15 and 21 obvious.
(See brief at pages 19-23.) We agree with appellant. The examiner relies on the “table of
contents” to teach the indication of a data structure which is admitted to be not taught by
Wilkinson. (See answer at pages 3-4.) We disagree with the examiner. In our view, the
table of contents is a structure to data, but the inclusion with the data would not provide the
claimed
identification data comprised of at least three bits which stipulate a corresponding
data structure for the track including a number of additional areas following said
timing area in a direction away from said entrance end of the respective track for the
recording by said heads in said additional areas
nor would it provide the claimed
respective additional identification data which have the same data structure as said
identification data recorded in said timing area and which stipulate a data structure for
the information data recorded in the respective additional area independently of said
data structure stipulated for said track by said identification data recorded in said
timing area and also independently of the data structure stipulated for any other one of
said additional areas.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007