Appeal No. 1997-1174
Application 08/353,681
The Examiner responds that Cardero provides for baseline
shift adjustment (answer-pages 2 and 3).
Appellants urge that Fennema is non-analogous prior art,
i.e., the track seeking art, but has not clearly identified
their art. We agree with the Examiner that Fennema is
analogous prior art, the disk drive art.
Appellants argue that Fennema’s goal is not signal
difference minimization, Fennema’s goal is track centering,
and state:
Even if Fennema’s amplitude difference
technique were somehow combined with
Christner et al., the result would still
fail to meet the asymmetry portions of
Applicant’s claim 12. ... It is clear from
the quoted language of claim 12 that the
asymmetry correction means is part of the
processing means that processes digital
samples, and that the asymmetry correction
means generates the digital compensated
signal. The only signal in Fennema
comparable to the digital compensated
signal is Fennema’s TES [track error
signal] signal whose positive and negative
peaks are defined by the position of the
head. It is clear that the mechanical
movement of Fennema’s head to define the
positive and negative peaks is not
equivalent to Applicant’s signal processing
of digital samples to define the positive
and negative peaks, and that the Fennema
system of involving the actuator and head
[and head] movement is not the structural
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007