Appeal No. 2006-2321
Application No. 10/706,254
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claimed
limitations are present in the disclosure of Hussein, the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1,
as well as dependent claim 2 not separately argued by Appellants,
is sustained.
We do not, however, sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 5, 12, 13, and 16 based on the
proposed combination of Hussein in view of Bryant. According to
the Examiner (Answer, pages 5, 6, and 12-14), Bryant has been
added to Hussein to address the deficiency of Hussein in
disclosing the writing of servo patterns. In our view, however,
the disclosure of the Bryant reference has little relevance to
the system of Hussein and, at best, provides only a disclosure
that self-servo writing is known in the art. From our review of
Bryant, the problems addressed by the Bryant reference, i.e., the
alignment of self-servo writing fields with previously stored
data on a disk, simply do not exist in the Hussein reference
which, from our earlier discussion, has no concern with self-
servo writing in the first instance. In our opinion, given the
disparity of problems addressed by the prior art references, and
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007