Appeal No. 1998-0988 Page 7
Application No. 08/268,861
The examiner turns to Carteau to supply the teaching of
supplying each of the claimed currents for a “predetermined
time,” as set forth in independent claim 3. While Carteau does
disclose current ramps applied for a predetermined time,
Carteau does not provide for the deficiency of Stefansky in
that there is no suggestion in Carteau that its teachings are
applied to an actuator unlocking apparatus, as claimed. The
examiner refers to system SCT in Carteau in which a mechanism
moves between a loaded and unloaded position but it is unclear
how this relates to the locking and unlocking of an actuator
arm. As described at column 7, lines 39-41, of Carteau, the
“loaded” position refers to the head hovering at some height
above the disk and the “unloaded” position refers to the head
being at an even greater height above the disk. Accordingly,
we will not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. §
103.
Independent claim 5 contains limitations similar to claim
1 in the supply of a first and second predetermined drive
current, but of a “predetermined amperage and duration.”
Accordingly, we find no evidence of the obviousness of this
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007