Appeal No. 2004-0292
Application 09/726,369
to the extent a skip mask is constructed according to any
“operation,” it is done for a track even if it is done for only
a portion of a track and not the whole track as seemingly argued.
It is not positively recited in these claims on appeal that the
calculation and constructing operations must be done for an
entire track at one time. Furthermore, the calculation feature
is not recited to be done on the fly, if that is what is meant
in independent claims 1 and 16 on appeal. Predetermined or
precalculated values for skip mask register “tables” in RAM of
AHP and their actual construction naturally proceeds for each
track and for each sector respectively of each track to be
accessed. The same feature as in independent claim 1 on appeal
is recited in the “wherein” clause of independent claim 16 on
appeal. Appellants’ remarks at the bottom of page 2 of the Reply
Brief recognizes that “AHP makes calculations based on the
operation.”
The rejection of dependent claims 2 and 4 on appeal is also
sustained since appellants have presented no arguments in the
Brief and Reply Brief as to these claims.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007