Appeal No. 2004-0507
Application No. 09/476,862
performed by interrupting the power supply or halting the supply
of a system clock, such a teaching is clearly provided by Landry.
For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has not been overcome
by any convincing arguments from Appellant, the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 7, as well as
dependent claim 8 not separately argued by Appellant, is
sustained.
We next consider the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claims 3-6 and 9-12 and note that, while we found Appellant’s
arguments to be unpersuasive with respect to the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 7 and 8 discussed supra, we reach the
opposite conclusion with respect to claims 3-6 and 9-12. In
particular, we agree with Appellant that, as presently claimed,
neither Shinada nor Landry has any suggestion of performing
synchronization of newly recorded data with previously recorded
data on a disk by utilizing a reproduction clock obtained by
reproducing the previously recorded data.
We recognize that the Examiner, in addressing the claimed
synchronization feature, directs attention (Answer, page 5) to
the portion of Shinada (column 8, lines 19-26) which describes
the returning of a recording head to a previous recording
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007