Appeal No. 1995-1052
Application No. 07/944,562
compensate for differences in speed of the supply/receive and speed of the read/write
with respect to the medium. (See answer at page 4.) The examiner maintains that the
combination would “inherently perform the control functions as claimed.” (See answer at
page 5.) We disagree with the examiner. From our understanding of the operation of the
buffers of Roth, the interrupts would cause a jump to a preceding portion of a track followed
by determination of when the point of the interrupt is later reached to restart the reading or
writing. (See Roth at column 2, lines 4-33.) Therefore, we disagree with the examiner’s
statement that the control means would “cause the search to position the head at a next
vacant track.” Rather, Roth merely teaches the jumping to a preceding portion of a track
and resume operation when that prior position is reached. Therefore, the examiner has
not provided a teaching of searching for a portion of a vacant track.
Appellant argues that Hashimoto merely teaches the storage of entire/complete
pieces of information on one track or in continuous sequences of tracks and therefore
does not record successive segments of a unitary piece of information interspersed with
tracks or track portions containing other pieces of unrelated information which are to be
retained in memory. (See brief at page 8.) We agree with appellant. In our view,
Hashimoto teaches the profiling of tracks to identify vacant tracks and then utilizing
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007