Appeal No. 1999-2240
Application 08/909,349
lines 16-19). It is clear that the data lands 134, 138 are
arranged in exactly the same manner as the tracking marks
(the grooves or inverse grooves) because they are
interleaved with the tracking marks. Thus, Best's
statements with respect to the tracking marks (col. 6,
lines 41-56) apply equally to data tracks.
Second, Appellants argue that Best does not mention
recording substantially half the data to be recorded in the
data area of the first recording area (Br16). As to the
Examiner's assertion that half the data would be recorded on
each recording layer (Paper No. 16, pp. 2-3), Appellants
argue that Best nowhere teaches or suggests recording half
the data on the first recording layer, and the Examiner
gratuitously assumes such fact (Br18).
The Examiner responds by first interpreting the claim
limitation (EA6):
The examiner interprets the limitation "substantially
one half of the amount of data to be recorded on the
medium in [sic, is] recorded to a predetermined data
area in the data area of the first recording layer" as
a multi layer disc to record data therein, wherein said
data is divided between the first layer and the second
layer because the first layer in [sic] not sufficient
to record the whole data on said first layer so that
the remainder of the data that could not be recorded on
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007