Appeal No. 96-1209
Application 08/168,805
this to a predetermined time duration (after all, some
predetermined time period has been set) and outputs a signal
for action if the measured duration exceeds the reference time
period.
With regard to claim 6, although a specific “timer”
structure is not shown by Comerford, it is clear from the
column 4 disclosure that Comerford contemplates a timer. Some
timing operation, inherently performed by a “timer,” occurs in
order to determine if an acceleration is within a
predetermined “range continuously for a period . . . .”
With regard to claim 7, we will not sustain the rejection
of this claim under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This claim requires that
the control action to be taken upon the satisfaction of the
two step test is that the actuator arm is instructed to move
toward the inner circumference of the disk in preparation for
impact. While Comerford discloses parking the disk drive
heads and, optionally, braking the disk’s rotation, there is
no suggestion in Comerford of moving the actuator arm toward
the inner circumference of the disk in preparation for impact.
As appellant discloses at page 9 of the specification, this
action to initiate a seek to the inner radius landing zone of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007