Appeal No. 2000-0373
Application No. 08/450,245
Clearly, Precourt, as construed by the examiner, discloses an encoder, 10 (which
may be considered a signal processor), which converts write data into NRZI code. See
column 3, lines 45-48 of Precourt. The signal from encoder 10 is transmitted via
compensator 14 to write driver 16 (construed by the examiner as the amplifier). Thus, the
issue is whether the NRZI converted write data is still NRZI coded when it reaches the write
driver. Appellants contend that the output of Precourt’s write delay compensator 14, 24
does not appear to be NRZI code [principal brief-page 17], while the examiner states that
while Precourt “mentions a serial to parallel converter in col. 6, lines 23-25, there is no
suggestion that the NRZI data has been decoded” [answer-page 10].
Since the examiner makes a reasonable case that Precourt makes no mention of
decoding or changing the NRZI signal from encoder 10 in Figure 1, or from shift register
202 in Figure 3, although there is a serial to parallel conversion of the signal, and
appellants have offered no evidence to the contrary, except to say that the output
of compensator 14, 24 “does not appear” to be NRZI code, we will find for the examiner on
this issue.
While appellants compare instant Figure 3 with Figure 3 of Precourt, contending
that, in the former, the input signal to read/write amplifier 2 is NRZI in relation with the
interleave write data, thereby reducing the signal frequency therebetween, appellants point
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007