Appeal No. 1997-3923
Application 08/212,203
scaling factor, finding a demand velocity) as discussed above are neither taught nor would have been
suggested by Edel and Lee, we find that the examiner has failed to make a prima facie case that Edel in
view of Lee would have taught or suggested the method of reducing target track seek time as defined in
representative independent claim 1 on appeal.
With respect to independent claim 5, we cannot sustain the rejection of this claim for the same
reasons discussed above with respect to representative claim 1, since claim 5 contains similar
limitations.
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 6, we cannot sustian the rejections as to these claims
for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 and 5 from which
they depend.
With respect to dependent claims 3, 4, and 7, we find that while DuVall does teach using a
square root of velocity in calculating correction signals for a magnetic disc transducer, DuVall fails to
provide for the deficiencies of Edel and/or Lee with respect to the determination and use of a maximum
actuator current, generating a scale factor based on the measured actuator current and a nominal
actuator current, and scaling a profile velocity with the scale factor to generate a demand velocity as
required by representative claim 1. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection as to dependent
claims 3, 4, and 7 for at least the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claims 1 and 5.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejections of claims 1 to 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007