Appeal No. 1997-3923
Application 08/212,203
follow, we will not sustain the decisions of the examiner rejecting claims 1 to 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
At the outset, we note that representative claim 1 on appeal clearly requires controlling
transducer movement to reduce seek time by determining "the maximum current the actuator driver can
supply to the actuator," "generating a scale factor" based on the "measured actuator current" and a
"nominal actuator current," and "scaling the profile velocity with said scale factor to generate a demand
velocity" (see claim 1 on appeal). We further note that our careful review of the examiner’s statement
of the rejection in the final rejection (paper no. 12) and the examiner’s response to appellants’
arguments in the Answer, reveals that the examiner nowhere asserts that either Edel or Lee, either
individually or in combination, teach or suggest generating a demand velocity as defined by appellants in
claim 1 on appeal. The portion of the statement of the rejection (see final rejection, pages 2 to 3)
describing the teachings and suggestions of Edel fails to state Edel teaches using or determining
"maximum acceleration" as required by representative claim 1, and instead states that Edel uses an
"average acceleration factor" calculated over a mid-band range of tracks (see Answer, page 3).
We find that the examiner has not satisfactorily shown that the collective teachings of Edel
(especially columns 7 and 8 cited by the examiner) or Lee would have fairly taught or suggested at least
the recited feature of determining "the maximum current the actuator driver can supply to the actuator,"
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007