Appeal No. 2002-1056
Application No. 08/772,888
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not present in the disclosure of Birk, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
independent claims 1-3 and 5-8, nor of claims 9, 10, 12, 14,
16-18, 22-25, 27-29, 33, 35, and 36 dependent thereon.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 4, 11, 13, 15, 19-21, 26,
30-32, 34 and 37 based on the various combinations of Birk with
the Misawa, Lyu, and Sarbadhikari references, we do not sustain
this rejection as well. For all of the reasons discussed supra,
the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness since we find no teaching or suggestion in any of the
applied secondary references that would overcome the innate
deficiencies of Birk in disclosing the reduction of access time
of image data determined to have a relatively large amount of
data and stored in the outer peripheral region of a disk, a
feature present in each of independent claims 1-3 and 5-8.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007