Appeal No. 2001-2119
Application No. 08/826,744
the same as with claim 2 discussed supra, i.e., the mirrored
disk drive arrangement provides redundant protection in case
of a drive failure.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of representative independent claim 4,
and claims 5, 14, and 15 which fall with claim 4 according
to Appellant’s grouping, in which Kassatly is combined with
Nakayama, we sustain this rejection as well. Appellant’s
arguments in response (Brief, pages 15 and 16) focus on the
contention that, in contrast to the language of claim
4 which requires the demultiplexing of control data before
the recording process, the control data in Nakayama is added
during the recording process. In a related argument (id.,
at 17), Appellant asserts that, as set forth in appealed
claim 4, the recording operation is controlled based on the
demultiplexed control data while Nakayama does not teach or
suggest that demultiplexed control data is used to control
recording.
We do not find these arguments from Appellant to be
persuasive. Contrary to Appellant’s contention, we do not
interpret the Examiner’s position as suggesting the bodily
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007