Appeal No. 2000-0723
Application 08/852,415
We now consider the rejection of claims 8-14, 16-24,
26 and 27 based on Allen and Lee and the rejection of claims
15 and 25 based on Allen, Lee, Duffield and Shinbo. Claims 8,
10, 12, 13 and 17-27 stand or fall together as a first group,
and dependent claims 9, 11 and 14-16 stand or fall together as
a second group [brief, page 6]. With respect to
representative, independent claim 8, the examiner finds that
Allen teaches all the features of claim 8 except for the
second signal providing the encoding method. The examiner
cites Lee as teaching this feature. The examiner finds that
it would have been obvious to the artisan to modify Allen by
incorporating information of the encoding method as taught by
Lee [answer, pages 7-8].
Appellants argue that although Lee does mention a
record of the data signal coding method, this record is not a
second signal being used to generate disc format information
as claimed. Specifically, appellants argue that Lee teaches
how information is physically laid out on a disc once it has
already been generated, but that Lee is silent as to a method
of generating the format information in the first place.
Appellants argue that the examiner appears to be relying on an
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007