Appeal No. 2002-1674
Application 09/089,901
It is apparent to us, as implied by the Examiner, that the land
and groove tracks in the applied prior art have control
parameters in common, e.g., the focus position in Appellants’
acknowledged prior art and the power discussed at column 12,
line 61 of Moriya.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 7, 9, 17, and 19 grouped together by Appellants.
We find no compelling arguments from Appellants that convince us
of any error in the Examiner’s assertion that power can be
interpreted as intensity, as discussed at page 5 of the English
translation of JP 4-141827, nor in the Examiner’s position with
respect to the claimed groove track and land track sectors
(Answer, pages 9 and 10).
As to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 3-6, 8, 10, 13-16 and 20 grouped together by
Appellants, in which the Johann and Pietrzykoski references are
applied to address the various claimed features, we sustain this
rejection as well. Appellants’ arguments (Brief, pages 13-15)
rely on assertions made previously with respect to independent
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007