Appeal No. 1998-2517
Application 08/317,129
forth in the main brief. Although there are some similarities
between the disclosure of Miyazaki and appellants’ disclosed
invention, the fact remains that Miyazaki does not determine
which of a plurality of recording heads in a recording device
writes the widest, and Miyazaki certainly does not make such a
determination in the specific manner recited in these claims.
First, Miyazaki looks for the head with the greatest write
signal magnitude, not the head that writes the widest. As
noted by appellants, these two determinations are not
equivalent. Miyazaki simply discloses that for a given
magnetic head and surface, the write signal amplitude is
proportional to the track width of the magnetic head. This
disclosure in no way suggests that the write signal amplitude
of different heads can be used to determine which head writes
the widest. Second, the specific sequence of steps recited in
representative claim 24 is simply not disclosed, taught or
suggested by the disk positioning device of Miyazaki. Even if
one could speculate that Miyazaki achieves the same result as
the claimed invention, which is not supported by this record,
that would not be a basis to find anticipation of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007