Appeal No. 1999-0170
Application No. 08/588,020
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claims 1, 6, 15, and 22, the
Examiner, as the basis for the obviousness rejection, applies
against the appealed claims various combinations of the Duffy,
Kuromiya, and Fisher references, each of which are directed to
recording device structures. As recognized by the Examiner,
these references do not disclose Appellant’s claimed feature
of having terminal information “ . . . recorded in a terminal
region of the address information,” a specific recitation of
which is present in each of the independent claims on appeal.
To address this deficiency, the Examiner turns to Emori and,
in particular, Emori’s illustrations in Figures 7 and 11(a)
and accompanying description at column 7, lines 1-49.
According to the Examiner (Answer, page 4), Emori provides a
teaching of terminal information, which the Examiner has
identified as the illustrated “timing pattern,” being recorded
in the terminal region of the address information. The
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007