Appeal No. 2000-0380
Application No. 08/816,648
art reference discloses every element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Haschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
On page 4 of the brief, Appellants argue that claim 25 recites the step of
“impressing a predetermined bit pattern thereon to provide corresponding output groups of
binary data”. We note that the other independent claim 44 recites “an encoder to encode .
. . while impressing a predetermined bit pattern thereon to provide corresponding output
groups of encoded binary bits”. Appellants further argue on page 4 of the brief that
Knudson does not teach predetermined, preselected, preordained or “impressed” on or in
an m/n rate block coded sequence. On page 5 of the brief, Appellants argue that since
Knudson fails to teach an “impressed” bit pattern on an m/n block coded sequence the
claims are not anticipated.
On page 5 of the answer, the Examiner argues that Knudson discloses in column 4,
lines 53-56, a 8/9 modulation code in which certain write sequences may occur. The
Examiner further argues that since the end of the 8/9 modulation code
encodes 8 uncoded bits to a 9 encoded bit, the 9 encoded bits presumably would include
a “predetermined bit pattern”.
To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence “must make clear that the missing
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007