Appeal No. 96-1856
Application 08/193,324
Rather than repeat the arguments of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the brief, the final
rejection and the answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse each rejection essentially for the reasons set
forth by the appellants in the brief on appeal.
Turning first to the rejection of independent claim 11,
the pertinent language of claim 11 that is in dispute is
“moving said head to a remote position relative to said
storage medium.” As to this rejection, we find ourselves in
essential agreement with appellants' position set forth at
pages 5 and 6 of the brief on appeal. Therefore, we do not
agree with the examiner's view that Supino's diagnostic inner
tracks 48 may be said to comprise a remote position relative
to said storage medium. Appellants' position as argued is
consistent with the disclosed invention, including the more
specific recitation of the remote position in claim 11 as
defined in claim 12 as the remote rest position, which is
position 50 in Figure 1 of the disclosed invention.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007