Appeal No. 1998-2500
Application No. 08/276,154
transfer step.” (See brief at page 13.) But, this specific language is not found in claim 1. The
language of claim 1 states that “beginning the data transfer when the head is positioned over
the first track and in response to the begin transfer signal” and “beginning positioning of the
head over the next track with the servo positioner, based on the next track destination, once
the head has reached an end of the first track.” Id. Therefore, it is unclear what language in
claim 1 appellants rely upon for support. Therefore, we find this argument unpersuasive.
Appellants argue that “providing the servo positioner with a next track destination
during the data transfer to the first track, the next track destination indicating a next track over
which the data transfer is to take place” clearly indicates that a determination of the next track
is performed during data transfer on the previous track. Id. at 13-14. Anderson states that
“[p]rocess steps 56, 58, and 60 anticipate the end time of the present read/write operation
and start the head selection process and actuator energization process at a time such that
the read/write will complete just prior to movement of head
away from the present track.” (See Anderson at col. 7.) With respect to the overlap of
processing, Anderson teaches in Figure 4 that phases 1, 2 and events 3a, 3b, and 3c may be
overlapped with other functions to reduce the track switching latency. Anderson teaches the
use of timeout functions 70 and 74 allow a preset amount of time for the phases and events to
have occurred. With the overlap processing shown in figure 4 and the discussion of figures
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007