Appeal No. 2002-1594
Application No. 09/057,573
OPINION
In response to the section 103 rejection of instant claim 1, appellants argue that
Kawashima fails to teach the step of detecting a direction and magnitude of a slice level
shift from the slicer based on at least one phase error signal. (Brief at 6.)
The examiner responds that Kawashima detects both direction and magnitude of
the slice level shift, referring to “col. 2, lines 40 plus.” (Answer at 4.)
Kawashima at column 2, line 39 et seq. describes the “time chart” comprised of
Figures 8(b) and 8(c), relating to the conventional apparatus shown in Figure 7. The
identified section of Kawashima describes correcting slice level B upward (Fig. 8(b)) or
downward (Fig. 8(c)). The correction of slice level, however, refers to generation (by
generating section 16; Fig. 7), rather than detection of slice level shift. Kawashima
describes detection of slice level at column 2, lines 1-25. Data detector 14 (Fig. 7)
compares output A of the AGC circuit and equalizer 13 with slice level signal B, and
converts output A (originating from photodetector 4A) into binary data of “0” or “1.”
We find no express disclosure of detecting a direction and magnitude of a slice
level shift from a slicer based on a phase error signal, and controlling the slicer in
accordance with the detection, as required by instant claim 1. Nor has the examiner set
forth any reasoning with respect to why Kawashima’s detection might be recognized by
the artisan as necessarily performing (i.e., under the principles of inherency) the step
recited in the claim.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007