Appeal No. 97-2421
Application 08/202,411
We reverse but enter a new ground of rejection as to claims 17 and 18 pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
Claims 17-19 and 23
"Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under
principles of inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention." RCA Corp. v. Applied
Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The limitation at issue in claim 17 is the following: "a control means for controlling the
raising and lowering means in such a manner that the lowering speed at which the floating type head
is brought to the floating height above the disc-shaped medium is kept slower than a raising speed
at which the floating-type head is moved away from the disc-shaped recording medium." Appellants
argue that "[i]n the device of Carteau et al, there is no teaching or suggestion for controlling the
raising and lowering means so that the floating-type head is controllably brought to the floating height
above the disc-shaped recording medium at a slower speed than it is moved away from the
disc-shaped recording medium, as claimed in claim 17.
The examiner responds that (Examiner's Answer, page 4):
As can be seen from figure 5C the motor current, which directly determines the speed at
which the head descends toward the medium is reduced upon approach of the medium. If as
appellant states that the raising process is the reverse of the lowering process, then it makes
senses [sic] that the head would be moved away from the medium in an increasing speed due
to current applied as depicted in figure 5c. The fact that these operations (raising and
lowering) are reverse operations and are controlled by a motor current that varies results in
head speeds that satisfy the claimed invention.
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007