Appeal No. 1998-2500
Application No. 08/276,154
Anderson does not clearly identify that this signal comes from a circuit which may be deemed
“a track change circuit” separate from the microcontroller.
With respect to the operation of the circuit to perform overlap of phase 2 and events
3a, 3b, and 3c, Anderson discloses the use of timeout functions. (See Anderson at column 8,
line 45 - column 9, line 45.) Anderson uses timeout functions in decision blocks 70 and 74 as
an alternative to the new head reading the sector ID to prevent premature activation. (See
Anderson at col. 9, lines 6-10.) In these embodiments, it is clear that Anderson does not
teach the use of a track change circuit. Since Anderson does not teach all of the limitations
recited in claim 6, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 6 and its dependent claim 7.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 17-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph is reversed; the decision of the examiner to reject claims
17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is reversed; the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed and the decision of the examiner to reject
claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007