Appeal No. 2004-0292
Application 09/726,369
Answer, claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over AHP alone.1
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the Brief and Reply Brief for
appellants’ positions, and to the Answer for the examiner’s
positions.
OPINION
For the reasons expressed by the examiner in the Answer as
amplified here, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and the separately stated rejection of
claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The nature of the positions taken by appellants and the
examiner appears to have changed or shifted somewhat between the
final rejection and the answer and between the Brief and Reply
Brief. Appellants’ initial position in the Brief that AHP does
not teach the claimed “constructing a skip mask according to
the sectors to be accessed on the track” feature of method
1 The examiner’s remarks at pages 5 and 6 of the Answer
indicate that the examiner is no longer relying upon the SMO
reference as a basis to reject claim 16 on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007