Appeal No. 2001-1847
Application No. 08/861,157
obviousness inquiry when the modification render[s] the prior art
reference inoperable for its intended purpose." In re Fritch, 23
USPQ2d 1780, n. 12, citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221
USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we cannot sustain
the obviousness rejection of claim 22 over Greenberg in view of
Prins.
Regarding the obviousness rejection of claims 4 and 7
through 14 over Park in view of Greenberg, appellant argues that
Park fails to disclose the claimed servo timing generator (see
Brief, pages 10-13), the claimed mode selection signal generator
(see Brief, pages 13-16), and the claimed pre-amplifier and
read/write channel circuit (see Brief, pages 16-19). Appellant
further challenges the combination of Park and Greenberg (see
Brief, page 19). Although we do not necessarily agree with all
of appellant's arguments, for the reasons which follow, we agree
at least that Park fails to disclose the claimed mode selection
signal generator, that Greenberg fails to remedy this
shortcoming, and that the claims, therefore, would not have been
obvious over the combination of Park and Greenberg.
Claim 4 recites, in pertinent part, "a mode selection signal
generator coupled to receive said read gate input signal and said
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007