Appeal No. 1998-2500
Application No. 08/276,154
8a and 8b at column 8, it is clear that Anderson performs calculations while the read/write is
being performed and the servo controller receives the track switch command from the file
controller. Therefore, Anderson teaches the claimed limitation and the argument thereto is
not persuasive.
Appellants argue that the language of claim 1 deals with latency and substantially
eliminates or reduces problems associated both with the system set out in the Anderson and
the prior art system in Figure 2 of the specification. (See brief at pages 13-14.) This
argument does not address the language of claim 1 with respect to Anderson under
35 U.S.C. § 102. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Since we find that the examiner
has set forth a prima facie case of anticipation which has not been rebutted by appellants, we
will sustain the rejection of claim 1. Since appellants have not separately argued claims 2-5,
we similarly sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-5.
With respect to claim 6, the examiner relies upon Anderson to address “the end of
the seek,” but the examiner does not address the language of the specific apparatus
which must be taught by Anderson for the claim to be anticipated. (See answer at page 6.)
While the examiner correlates signals to the start transfer signal and the qualified sector
signal, the examiner has not shown in the Anderson reference the presence of a track change
circuit coupled to the servo positioner, the microcontroller, the sector indicating circuit and the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007