Appeal No. 2006-2321
Application No. 10/706,254
Although we don’t disagree with Appellants’ assertions (Brief,
page 5) that the term “servo pattern” has a recognized meaning in
the art distinct from the conventional writing of user data to a
disk, and further that the Hussein reference does not disclose
the writing of servo patterns, it is apparent that the language
of claim 1 does not recite writing a “servo pattern.” Instead,
claim 1 merely requires writing “data bits” (not servo data bits
as pointed out by the Examiner) which are “associated with a
servo pattern.”
We are also in agreement with the Examiner that the writing
of data bits in Hussein, even though such data may be client user
data, is “associated with a servo pattern” since the servo
controller 98 which reads the servo sector data 158 operates to
control the write gates of the read/write channel 68. This
operation is verified by Hussein as indicated at column 5, lines
42-60 and as well as the discussion beginning at column 10, line
39. It is our opinion that Appellants’ arguments improperly
attempt to narrow the scope of the claim by implicitly adding
disclosed limitations which have no basis in the claim. See In
re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007