Appeal No. 2006-1970
Application No. 10/014,392
1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. Of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d
775, 781, 227 USPQ 773, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
In determining the subject matter encompassed by claim 1, we
note that the claim merely requires that the data be interleaved
with the reference fields without describing the relationship
between the data and the reference byte. In that regard, as
argued by the Examiner (answer, page 17), the analysis should not
be made with respect to the data, but actually on retrieved
reference fields. Additionally, the claimed readout error is not
limited to data recording error and instead, could be an error
arising from synchronization problems. We also remain
unconvinced by Appellant’s argument (reply brief, page 8) that
the alleged absence of discussions related to “readout of the
data fields” and adjustment of various operating parameters based
on this “data” readout in Kuroda distinguishes the claims over
the applied prior art.
Therefore, while Kuroda describes forming the pre-pits
corresponding to the pre-information on the land tracks of the
storage medium prior to shipping the DVD’s (col. 5, lines 18-21),
it is also disclosed that the pre-information is recorded in a
portion of the length of 14T frame in the head part of the sync
frame (col. 5, lines 54-58). The recorded pre-information is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007