Appeal No. 2000-0373
Application No. 08/450,245
obviousness with regard to the instant claimed subject matter. However, we will sustain
the rejections of claims 3, 4 and 21, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, relying on the combination of
Precourt and Behrens, either in whole or in part.
In applying Noguchi to instant claim 1, the examiner contends that Noguchi teaches
a read/write processor 25 having an interleave write data generator, citing column 2, lines
47-49, a read/write amplifier 27 and a compound circuit, identifying column 2, lines 49-50.
The examiner interprets the parallel-serial converter as being the claimed “compound
circuit” because it restores the interleave data to its original form. The trouble here is that
Noguchi’s parallel/serial converter is not part of the amplifier. While the examiner
recognizes this, the examiner contends that the parallel/serial converter is connected to the
input of the amplifier and, so, is “functionally equivalent to being a part of the amplifier”
[answer-page 3].
The examiner also recognizes that Noguchi fails to teach the read/write signal
processor being connected to the read/write amplifier by a plurality of lines. Thus, the
examiner turns to Kondo, wherein a signal processor 12 is connected to the amplifier 13
by a plurality of lines, whereby the plurality of interleaved write data is transmitted between
the amplifier and the signal processor by the plurality of lines, referring to Figure 1B. The
examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007