Appeal No. 2005-2584
Application No. 09/897,331
42-45. While, we do not find that the phase discussed in column 7 (relationship of wave
traveling positive or negative from start of partition, see figure 3) is the same
phase that is addressed in the claim, we nonetheless note that column 7 does not
address a relationship between the phase (traveling positive or negative) and the
information encoded in the track by information marks 274. Further, while Maeda
teaches that the number of periods of wobbling is the same in each bit area, we find no
teaching in Maeda that the number of bits in the wobbling track correspond to a
predetermined number of channel bits represented by the first variation. See column 7,
lines 39-42. Thus, we do not find that Maeda anticipates every limitation of independent
claim 4. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 through 6,
and 14 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Maeda.
We next consider the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, and 7 through
13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Timmermans in view of Maeda.
Independent claims 1 and 7 both contain the limitation “the phase of the second
variations being coupled to the phase of the first variations.” As discussed supra with
respect to claim 4, we find that the scope of this limitation to be as described on page 6
of appellants’ specification “a predetermined number of wobbles corresponds to a
predetermined number of channel bits represented by the first variations.” In the
statement of the rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 7 through 13, on page 7 of the
answer, the examiner finds that Timmermans does not teach this limitation, and relies
upon Maeda to teach this limitation. We concur with the examiner’s finding that
Timmermans does not teach the limitation of “the phase of the second variations being
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007