Appeal No. 2000-0373
Application No. 08/450,245
to no claim language directed to such a difference. Accordingly, this argument is not
persuasive of patentability.
Appellants base their argument on the presumption that neither Precourt nor
Behrens discloses a “conversion circuit...” However, as we find, supra, Precourt does,
indeed, disclose such a conversion circuit whereby the write data is transmitted between
the amplifier and the signal processor in the NRZI code, appellants’ arguments have been
answered in full and found not to be persuasive.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will also sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
because, as is clear from appellants’ “arguments” at page 19 of the principal brief,
appellants make the same arguments as with regard to independent claim 3. Thus, claims
4 and 21 will fall with claim 3.
We have sustained the rejection of claims 3, 4 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but
we have not sustained the rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 18-20, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007