Appeal No. 95-2910
Application 08/084,337
original application was inadvertently reversed from what was
intended, and the skilled artisan would have recognized this
error.
Although the examiner has attempted to demonstrate
that the original application can reasonably be interpreted to
support a different invention, it is clear to us that the
examiner’s interpretation is contrary to much of what is
described in the disclosure. The examiner’s interpretation
would have the magnetic head move to another track before
operations on the current track have been completed although
the original specification says many times that processing on
the current track is to be completed before the head is moved
to a new track [see, for example, the paragraphs bridging
pages 11 and 12 and pages 13-14]. Thus, the examiner’s
interpretation is contrary to one of the main functions that
the disclosed invention is designed to carry out.
Additionally, we agree with appellants that original
claim 1 clearly supports the amendments made to the disclosure
and claims in this application. The original claim 1 recited
the step of “anticipating completion of data transfer at the
present track and defining a leadoff interval sufficient for
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007