Appeal No. 1999-0170
Application No. 08/588,020
include the teachings of Emori, motivation being to detect
servo information more precisely even when noises are included
as set forth in col. 3, lines 28-30 of Emori.” (Id.)
In response, Appellant asserts a failure of the Examiner
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since all the
claim limitations are not taught or suggested by the prior
art. In making this assertion, Appellant, rather than
attacking the combinability of Emori with the other applied
references, instead contends that, contrary to the Examiner’s
interpretation, Emori does not provide a disclosure of
terminal information recorded in a terminal region of the
address information as required by each of the appealed
independent claims. In particular, Appellant argues (Brief,
page 4) that Emori’s timing pattern, which the Examiner
identifies as the terminal information, is at the end of the
AGC field, not at the end of the Grey code zone which contains
Emori’s address information.
After reviewing the disclosure of the Emori reference, in
light of the arguments of record, we are in agreement with
Appellant’s position as stated in the Brief. Our
interpretation of the disclosure of Emori coincides with that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007