Appeal No. 2006-2321
Application No. 10/706,254
column 5, lines 42-60 in relation to the described write channel
68, write gate WG2, and servo controller 98. In our view, the
Examiner’s analysis is sufficiently reasonable that we find that
the Examiner has as least satisfied the burden of presenting a
prima facie case of anticipation. The burden is, therefore, upon
Appellants to come forward with evidence and/or arguments which
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case. Only those
arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are
deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)].
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner
has not shown how each of the claimed features is present in the
disclosure of Hussein so as to establish a case of anticipation.
In particular, Appellants’ arguments focus on the contention
(Brief, pages 5 and 6; Reply Brief, pages 1 and 2) that, in
contrast to the claimed invention, Hussein does not write a servo
pattern onto a disk but, rather, writes only conventional client
user data.
After reviewing the language of appealed independent claim 1
in light of Appellants’ arguments, however, we find that such
arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007