Ex Parte ICHIMURA et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2001-1936                                                        
          Application 09/049,478                                                      


               a focusing controlling means for providing a focus control             
          to position the light beam focused by the light beam focusing               
          means onto the signal recording layer of the recording media; and           
               an offset adjusting means for adjusting an offset between              
          the focused light beam focus positioned by the focus controlling            
          means and the signal recording layer of the recording media                 
          depending upon an RF signal read from the recording media.                  

               The following references are relied on by the examiner:                
          Yamamoto et al. (Yamamoto)    5,712,842           Jan. 27, 1998             
                                             (filing date Feb. 12, 1996)              
          Matsui                        5,777,961           July  7, 1998             
                                             (filing date June 22, 1995)              
          Ceshkovsky                    5,978,331           Nov.  2, 1999             
                                   (effective filing date Dec. 6, 1995)               
          Maeda et al. (Maeda)          6,005,834           Dec. 21, 1999             
                                        (filing date Mar. 7, 1997)                    

               Page 3 of the answer also indicates that the following                 
          reference is cited in response to appellants' arguments and                 
          necessitated thereby:                                                       
          Kuroda et al. (Kuroda)        5,892,882           Apr. 6, 1999              
                                   (effective filing date Mar. 22, 1995)              
               Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second                  
          paragraph, as being indefinite.  Claims 1-15 stand rejected under           
          35 U.S.C. § 103.  As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies           
          upon Ceshkovsky in view of Maeda.  The examiner has also rejected           
          claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as            

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007