Appeal No. 2006-0829
Application No. 09/921,024
1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore
& Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
At pages 3 and 4 of the Answer, the Examiner indicates how the various
limitations in claims 3 and 4 are read on the disclosure of Curtis. In particular, the
Examiner points to the illustrations in Figures 2 and 4 of Curtis as well as the disclosure
at column 3, lines 35-60 of Curtis.
Appellants’ arguments in response to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection assert that the Examiner has not shown how each of the claimed features are
present in the disclosure of Curtis so as to establish a case of anticipation.
According to Appellants (Brief, pages 3 and 4; Reply Brief, pages 1 and 2), there is no
“control of reading” as claimed in Curtis since in both of Curtis’ disclosed embodiments
the media sectors can be read. In Curtis’ first described embodiment, a determination is
made as to whether a media device can be written or is read-only; however, the media
can be read in both cases. Similarly, in the second embodiment described by Curtis, a
determination is made as to whether a media device has been written and, if so, the
device is then defined as a “write-once-read-many (WORM)” device. Thus, Appellants
draw the conclusion that, since Curtis’ media device can be read in both described
embodiments, there is no “control of reading” since Curtis’ storage status bits do not
restrain or have any power over reading.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007