Appeal No. 1998-2713
Application No. 08/583,295
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Abbott.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 17), several
Office Actions (paper numbers 7 and 11), and the answer (paper
number 21) for the respective positions of the appellants and
the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse all of the rejections.
According to the examiner (paper number 11, pages 2 and
3), “[t]he reference shows a method for calibrating a discrete
time equalizing filter for a magnetic storage system
comprising the steps of programming a filter with at least one
component setting (col. 18, ll. 34-38, 66-68, col. 19, ll. 1-
20), reading data (col. 20, ll. 15-32), generating error
values (col. 20, ll. 15-32, col. 21, ll. 2-34), repeating the
aforementioned steps and programming the filter with the
calculated settings (col. 22, ll. 2-4, col. 24, ll. 14-31).”
Appellants argue (brief, pages 6 and 7) that:
Abbott discloses an “adaptive algorithm” for
calibrating the component settings (coefficients) of
a discrete equalizer filter in a synchronous read
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007