Appeal No. 1997-1174 Application 08/353,681 The Examiner responds that Cardero provides for baseline shift adjustment (answer-pages 2 and 3). Appellants urge that Fennema is non-analogous prior art, i.e., the track seeking art, but has not clearly identified their art. We agree with the Examiner that Fennema is analogous prior art, the disk drive art. Appellants argue that Fennema’s goal is not signal difference minimization, Fennema’s goal is track centering, and state: Even if Fennema’s amplitude difference technique were somehow combined with Christner et al., the result would still fail to meet the asymmetry portions of Applicant’s claim 12. ... It is clear from the quoted language of claim 12 that the asymmetry correction means is part of the processing means that processes digital samples, and that the asymmetry correction means generates the digital compensated signal. The only signal in Fennema comparable to the digital compensated signal is Fennema’s TES [track error signal] signal whose positive and negative peaks are defined by the position of the head. It is clear that the mechanical movement of Fennema’s head to define the positive and negative peaks is not equivalent to Applicant’s signal processing of digital samples to define the positive and negative peaks, and that the Fennema system of involving the actuator and head [and head] movement is not the structural 6Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007