Ex Parte Suzuki et al - Page 19


                Appeal No. 2007-0464                                                                                                   
                Application 09/964,874                                                                                                 
                The claimed limitation need only read on the operation of Takagi once, i.e., a single time, no                         
                matter how long Takagi’s disk drive operates.  And it does.  It always does for that temperature                       
                measured immediately after the temperature measurement resulting in the last control                                   
                adjustment.  The claim limitation at issue reads on Takagi’s disclosure for the pairs of                               
                temperature measurements including one at the time of a control adjustment and the one                                 
                immediately thereafter.  Claim 25 is sufficiently broad that the comparison need only be made                          
                once.  The limitation does not have to be met for each successive pairs of temperature                                 
                measurements.  That is not what the claim requires.  Moreover, during examination before the                           
                U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, claim terms are properly construed according to their                                
                broadest reasonable interpretation not inconsistent with the specification.  We have no reason to                      
                read into the claim a requirement that for each pair of two successive temperature measurements,                       
                a determination of difference be made and that whenever the difference exceeds a predetermined                         
                value the focus or tracking offset be reset.  That would be an unduly narrow interpretation.                           
                                                             Conclusion                                                                
                        The rejection of claim 24 as anticipated by Otsuka under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.                          
                        The rejection of claims 10-11 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the                               
                combined teachings of Kulakowski and either Tsuchimochi or Tsutsui is reversed.                                        
                § 102(e) is reversed.                                                                                                  
                        The rejection of claims 12-13 and 26-27 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on                         
                the combined teachings of Kulakowski and either Takasugi or Davis is reversed.                                         
                        The rejection of claim 25 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Otsuka and                            
                Kulakowski is reversed.                                                                                                




                                                                  19                                                                   

Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013