Appeal No. 97-3469
Application 08/188,427
The examiner states (EA3):
Applicant's equations recited within the disclosure,
see page 5, lines 5-10, are not seen to define any
specific ranges or values and it is not clear how these
values would correlate to the head, slider configuration
and their positioning on the medium. Furthermore, the
particular example added to the specification at page 5,
between lines 22 and 23, simply set [sic] forth one prior
art example of a head slider. It has not been shown that
the particular equations may be used for other ranges of
skew angles, or for other types of heads.
Appellants argue that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have known how to apply the relationships on page 5,
especially in view of the example added to page 5, between
lines 22 and 23, by the amendment received September 14, 1995,
(Paper No. 16) (entered as noted in Paper No. 18).
We agree with appellants. The write gap width W , the gap
1
separation d, the positioning errors X and X , and the minimumI O
and maximum skew angles " are known from the geometry and
tolerances of the head and the rotary actuator. It is a
simple matter to solve for the read gap width W given the
2
offset C or to solve for the offset C given the read gap
width W . It would have taken no experimentation to use the
2
relationships to design a rotary actuator for positioning a
dual gap head relative to the track on a rotating recording
medium so that the read gap is located completely within the
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007