Appeal No. 2000-0379
Application No. 08/815,352
Both rejections are based on Dudley's disclosure of a
disk drive wherein "the sync mark (70,7) is selected to have a
minimum correlation with the sync mark (70,7) concatenated
with the preamble (68,5)" (col. 7, ll. 2-4), which the
examiner correctly characterizes as satisfying claim 1's
requirement that the data sync mark write string be an ordered
set of m expected symbols selected to have the maximum
distance from all non-mark substrings of m consecutive
expected symbols that exist in the concatenated string of
expected symbols formed by the preamble write string and data
sync mark string. Answer at 3-4.
Appellant does not deny that all of the elements of claim
1 find correspondence in Dudley. Instead, Appellant argues
that the subject matter relied on in the Dudley patent is not
available as § 102(e) prior art against his claims because he
is the inventor of that subject matter. As proof, Appellant
offers a 37 CFR § 1.132 declaration by Richard W. Hull, who is
not Appellant or one of the Dudley inventors, citing In re 1
1The Dudley et al. inventors are Trent O. Dudley,
Richard T. Behrens, and Christopher P. Zook. The Dudley
patent is assigned to Cirrus Logic, Inc. ("Cirrus").
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007