Appeal No. 97-0260
Application 08/287,477
already suggested combination of Lewis and Janz regarding
claim 1. The Examiner adds that
Oliver et al. col. 6, lines 19-34 and col. 22,
lines 52-65 shows copying the servo pattern to a
plurality of disks, which includes duplicating the
written quad burst servo track offsets. It would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was made to
incorporate the copying of servo bursts to plural
disks of Oliver et al. into the system of the
disclosed combination in order to increase servo
tracking accuracy by reducing variation in servo
track offsets across the stack of disks [answer,
page 5].
Appellants have not presented any arguments against the
suggested combination other than a conclusory statement
regarding Oliver alone, i.e., “[a]s described in Oliver et al.
the servo writing carried out one head, for example head H2,
the same operation is sequentially or simultaneously carried
out on the remaining multiple heads H3 and H4 (column 22,
lines 52-65)” [brief, pages 30 to 31]. Therefore, we sustain
the obviousness rejection of claim 17 over Lewis, Janz and
Oliver.
Regarding claim 20, it depends on the independent claim
18 and thus contains at least the limitations discussed above
regarding the rejection of claim 18 over Lewis and Janz.
-14-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007