Appeal No. 2000-1252
Application No. 08/522,839
adding the correction estimate to the servo position
error signal to provide an adjusted servo
position error signal; and
using the adjusted servo position error signal to
correct the position of the actuator.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Andrews, Jr. et al. (Andrews) 5,539,714 Jul. 23,
1996
(effective filing date Sep. 25, 1991)
Claims 1 through 8 and 11 through 13 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Andrews.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 22) and the
answer (paper number 24) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims
1 through 8 and 11 through 13.
Appellants argue (brief, pages 12 through 23) that none
of the claimed steps and apparatus for reducing RRO signals in
the SPE signal is disclosed in Andrews, whereas the examiner
contends (answer, pages 4 through 8) that all of the claimed
steps and apparatus are met by the teachings of Andrews.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007