Appeal No. 2005-2284
Application No. 09/748,589
lines 37-52, for this limitation, contending that it would have
been obvious to implement the ECC generator as part of the file
system “because this would make of the device of the prior art
combination useable with known file systems which incorporate ECC
generation” [sic] (answer-page 6).
Appellants argue that Figure 31 of Anderson illustrate how
file system information is combined with, or embedded in, ECC
information prior to recording the information on the disc.
Therefore, argue appellants, “it is clear that the file system
information and the ECC information are separately generated”
(brief-page 10) since the file system information is combined with
or embedded in ECC information. Appellants conclude therefrom that
the ECC functionality is not implemented in a file system, as
required by claim 137.
Claim 137 does not require the ECC information and the file
information to be generated simultaneously. Therefore, appellants’
argument that the ECC information and the file information in
Anderson are, somehow, generated separately, is not persuasive. As
pointed out by the examiner, at page 11 of the answer, “the claim
merely states that ECC is implemented in a file system, it is noted
that the ECC of Anderson is used to reconstruct file system
14
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007