Appeal No. 2006-1970
Application No. 10/014,392
Claims 1, 3, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26 and 31
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Kuroda.
Claims 2, 9, 11, 12, 15 and 27-30 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuroda.
Claims 4-8, 18, 21, 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuroda in combination with
Verboom.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, reference is
made to the brief (filed August 17, 2005), the reply brief (filed
December 22, 2005) and the answer (mailed October 18, 2005) for
the respective positions of Appellant and the Examiner. Only
those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but
chose not to make in the briefs have not been considered (37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of the claims
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner’s position is that Kuroda
teaches recording pre-information in every sync frame which is
periodically interleaved onto the disk every 1488T units (T being
a unit of length) (answer, pages 4 and 16). The Examiner further
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007