Appeal No. 1998-0988 Page 5
Application No. 08/268,861
The examiner relies on the disclosure of Stefansky, at
column 7, lines 11-20, for a teaching of this claim limitation.
That section of Stefansky does, indeed, disclose currents
passing in opposite directions in the coil so that the actuator
arm may be pivoted to selected locations. However, this
portion of Stefansky is describing the motion of the actuator
to move the head to various locations on the disk but it does
not describe anything regarding an “actuator unlocking
apparatus,” as claimed. Thus, while Stefansky may employ two
oppositely directed currents for moving an actuator arm, the
reference is silent with regard to the two claimed
predetermined drive currents for unlocking the actuator.
Stefansky does mention unlocking the actuator but does so
at column 15, lines 1-6, wherein it is noted that the actuator
arm is released from the magnetic parking unit by the force
generated by actuator assembly 48 and that no mechanical means
are necessary for effecting this release. However, the
reference is silent as to the specifics of the release. There
is no disclosure or suggestion of two predetermined drive
currents to perform this function in the manner claimed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007