Appeal No. 97-0260
Application 08/287,477
obviousness rejection of claim 18 over Lewis and Janz. Since
claim 19 depends on claim 18 and contains at least the
limitations discussed above regarding claim 18, we also
reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 19 over Lewis and
Janz.
Regarding claim 28, the Examiner has not specifically
addressed, for example, the limitations:”developing timing
information including a timing count value” (claim 28, lines
11 and 12) and “comparing ... burst write start count value,
... and ... burst write stop count value ... and ...
revolution count value” (claim 28, lines 13 to 21). Thus, the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case to reject
claim 28 over Lewis and Janz. For that reason, and
considering Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 28 [brief,
pages 27 and 28], we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 28 over Lewis and Janz.
Rejection of claims 13 and 14 over Lewis, Janz and
Sidman
These claims are rejected as being obvious over Lewis,
Janz and Sidman. Sidman’s system deals with a multi-platter
-12-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007