Appeal No. 95-2910
Application 08/084,337
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the reasons
relied upon by the examiner as support for the rejection. We
have, likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in
reaching our decision, the appellants’ arguments set forth in
the brief along with the examiner's rationale in support of
the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in the
examiner's answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record
before us and the level of skill in the particular art, that
the reasons advanced by the examiner are insufficient to
support the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, and we will not sustain the rejection.
The relevant facts in this case are not in dispute.
The invention relates to the implementation of preprocessing
operations in moving a magnetic head from a currently active
track to a new track. The preprocessing operations are based
on a relationship between a leadoff time to move the head and
the time necessary to complete processing on the current
track. The originally filed application indicated that
preprocessing was done when the leadoff time was less than the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007