Appeal No. 1998-2472
Application No. 08/614,324
square wave data pattern. We agree. There is no indication
in either reference that the test signal used is a square wave
data pattern. Consequently, we must reverse the rejection of
claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 23, and 24.
Claim 18 requires that the parameter signal be indicative
of the flyheight of the transducer head with respect to the
disk surface. Meyer states (column 3, lines 42-46) that
"[t]he amplitude of the test output signal is proportional to
the magnitude of the air bearing disturbance." Since the air
bearing disturbance is a disruption in the flying height of
the read/ write transducer, the signal of Meyer is indicative
of the flyheight. Therefore, we will affirm the rejection of
claims 18 and 19.
As to claim 21, appellant contends (Brief, page 17) that
neither reference teaches or suggests normalizing the samples,
as recited in claim 21. We agree. Although Sheppard shows
normalizing values in the flowcharts of Figures 10 and 11,
nowhere does Sheppard suggest a reason for normalizing the
values in the method of Meyer. Accordingly, we will reverse
the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claims 22 and 12, appellant asserts (Brief,
page 18) that neither reference discloses or suggests using a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007