Appeal No. 1998-0696 Page 6
Application No. 08/444,664
reading, writing and formatting. While it is unclear just what
part of APA the examiner allegedly relies on for a teaching of
the claimed range of motion limitations, we find nothing in the
instant specification which suggests that the prior art
provided for the read element to be equidistant from the center
of the track during reading, writing and formatting.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 4
and 7 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
With regard to claims 1 through 3, 5 and 6, the dependent
claims falling with claim 1, the examiner further relies on
Brown for a teaching of adding first and second offsets in
opposite directions, to a position error signal dependent on
mode. However, we agree with appellants that Brown appears to
be concerned with a different type of “offset” than are
appellants. Brown is concerned with correcting for track
misregistration by compensating for differences of a skew angle
between the write and read elements with respect to the servo
pattern whereas appellants are adding different offset values,
depending on whether a read or write [or offset operation in
claim 2] operation is taking place, in order to adjust the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007