Appeal No. 1998-2500
Application No. 08/276,154
35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellants argue that the “present invention provides a circuit, separate from the
microcontroller, which interfaces between the formatter and the servo circuitry so that: 1. the
data transfer step can begin automatically, and substantially immediately, after a servo step
has ended; and 2. a servo step can begin automatically, and substantially immediately, after
the data transfer.” (See brief at page 12.) While this is true of the disclosed invention,
appellants have not correlated these benefits to the language of claim 1. Therefore, this
argument is not persuasive.
With respect to claim 1, the examiner maintains that Anderson teaches the invention
as recited in claim 1. (See answer at page 5.) We agree with the examiner. Appellants
argue that “the present invention deals with latency without encountering any of the problems
associated with the prior art. The present invention does not start the servo step until the data
transfer is complete. Further, the present invention does not start data transfer at a new track
until the servo step is complete. Therefore, the present system is not attempting to read or
write while it is being moved off of the track center.”
(See brief at page 13.) Appellants argue that this is supported by “independent claim 1
where it states that ‘the beginning of the step in which the head is positioned over the next
track is not started until the head has reached an end of the first track.’ Therefore, this
indicates that the physical servo step positioning step is not performed during the data
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007