Appeal No. 1999-0170
Application No. 08/588,020
of Appellant, i.e., the timing bit terminal information is
located at the end of the AGC field as illustrated in Emori’s
Figure 7. We are persuaded by Appellant’s contention (Brief,
page 4) that, since Emori provides a clear disclosure that the
check code pattern containing the address information and the
timing pattern are formed in separate zones, there is no basis
for the Examiner’s conclusion that Emori’s timing pattern is
located in the terminal portion of the address information
region.
We have taken note of the Examiner’s argument (Answer,
page 15) that contends that Emori’s timing pattern appears
after the track address just as Appellant’s disclosed terminal
information. We do not find such argument to be persuasive.
While there is no doubt that Emori’s timing pattern appears
after the address information, it is equally true that, as
discussed supra, such timing pattern terminal information is
not in the terminal region of the address information as
required by the claims on appeal.
Since all of the claim limitations are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art, it is our opinion that the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007