Ex parte FUNCHES et al. - Page 4




          Appeal No. 95-3570                                                          
          Application 08/215,192                                                      


          persons of ordinary skill.  Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co.,            
          948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991).                 
               In the present case, Albert discloses a “method for                    
          maximizing throughput of a hard disk drive by adaptively seeking            
          to a data track at which data is to be stored and adaptively                
          commencing the reading or writing of data in accordance with the            
          movement of the read/write head in the proximity of the data                
          track” (Abstract).  As summarized by Albert,                                
                    [i]n one aspect of the present invention,                         
               throughput is increased by adaptively varying the delay                
               time between passage of the “on track” threshold and                   
               commencement of reading and writing to select, for each                
               seek, a minimum delay time, consistent with the                        
               velocity with which the head approaches the destination                
               track, that will not result in a write fault.  In a                    
               second aspect of the invention, terminal portions of                   
               the velocity demand profile are adjusted adaptively to                 
               cause the read/write heads to enter the fine control                   
               regions about the tracks with velocities that will                     
               cause rapid settlement of the heads on a selected                      
               destination track [column 3, lines 6 through 17].                      
               A more detailed summary of Albert’s invention, which is                
          relied upon by the examiner to support the rejection on appeal,             
          appears in the reference at column 3, line 18 through column 4,             
          line 11 (see pages 2 and 3 in the answer).                                  






                                         -4-                                          





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007