Appeal No. 1999-0043
Application 08/599,875
Examiner's position, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 15)
(pages referred to as "Br__") and the reply brief (Paper
No. 17) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of
Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to
substitute the multiple movable heads of Gilovich disposed on
an actuator assembly and movable in a direction transverse to
the circumference of the recording medium disk for the fixed
heads of Daniels in which the heads are disposed around a
single track of fixed radius (Br7-8). It is argued that it
would actually increase the package size to replace the fixed
heads of Daniels with the movable heads and actuator assembly
of Gilovich (Br7; RBr2). It is argued that the resultant
combination does not teach or suggest the feature of claim 1
that the control means switches to that head which is closer
to the target position (Br9). It is argued that Daniels does
not suggest switching between two heads in three regions as
recited in claims 4 and 8 (RBr3) and that it would not be
inherent to space the regions in a circumferential direction
as stated by the Examiner (RBr3-4).
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007