Appeal No. 2002-1674
Application 09/089,901
Our review of the applied prior art references in addition
to Appellants’ acknowledged prior art reveals that, in our view,
even assuming, arguendo, that there is no explicit teaching in
the references themselves suggesting their combination, the
nature of the existing problems as described in the references
clearly suggests their combination. As the Federal Circuit
recently stated,” ... this court has consistently stated that a
court or examiner may find a motivation to combine prior art
references in the nature of the problem to be solved.” See Ruiz
v. A.B. Chance, 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed.
Cir. 2004).
As discussed by Appellants at pages 29 and 30 of their
specification, and as argued at pages 3, 4, and 6 of the Brief,
the acknowledged prior art and JP 4-141827 disclose the
recording and subsequent reproducing of information on land
tracks and groove tracks separately. As evident from the
described operation of the acknowledged prior art, in order to
gather necessary control setting information from the land and
groove tracks, it is necessary to jump from an outer land or
groove track to an inner land or groove track.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007