Appeal No. 2006-2521
Application No. 09/788,582
well as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the recited functional
limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
The examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to be fully met by
the disclosure of Tateishi [supplemental answer, pages 4-5]. Since appellants have not
separately argued any of the claims with respect to the rejection, we will consider the
rejection with respect to independent claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection.
With respect to representative claim 1, appellants argue that the signal STS in Tateishi
does not indicate a first signal state by adjusting a voltage level from a previous time
interval and a second signal state by maintaining the voltage level from the previous time
interval [brief, page 3]. The examiner responds that appellants have failed to understand
how the examiner defined the claimed two signal states. The examiner explains that the
first signal state is the change in floppy drive status (floppy disk is inserted into the drive
or the floppy disk is removed from the drive), and the second signal state is that there is
no change in the floppy drive status (floppy disk is maintained either inside or outside the
floppy drive). Thus, the examiner points out that it is the value of STS, and not the
output of EX1, that is used to indicate the two signal states [supplemental answer, pages
5-6]. Appellants respond that the states suggested by the examiner are not disclosed in
Tateishi. They note that while examples may exist in the prior art where, coincidentally,
two states may be subsequently defined such that they are represented by a maintained
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007