Appeal No. 2002-1674
Application 09/089,901
example, the repeated record and reproduce operations in the
prior art, as would be necessary to achieve optimum control
settings (e.g., as discussed in JP 4-141827) would result in
recording on a continuous land track and on a continuous groove
track, i.e., a recording on both land and groove tracks, followed
eventually by reproduction from both the land and groove tracks
as claimed. While such an operation may not be the same as that
specifically disclosed by Appellants, it is the claimed invention
which is at issue in this appeal. To whatever extent Appellants
are alleging a reduction of disk revolutions as a distinguishing
factor in the present appealed claims, no such language appears
in the claims.
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been over-
come by any convincing arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 11 is
sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2 and 12, grouped and
argued together by Appellants, we sustain this rejection as well.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007