Appeal No. 2000-1252 Application No. 08/522,839 adding the correction estimate to the servo position error signal to provide an adjusted servo position error signal; and using the adjusted servo position error signal to correct the position of the actuator. The reference relied on by the examiner is: Andrews, Jr. et al. (Andrews) 5,539,714 Jul. 23, 1996 (effective filing date Sep. 25, 1991) Claims 1 through 8 and 11 through 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Andrews. Reference is made to the brief (paper number 22) and the answer (paper number 24) for the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner. OPINION We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1 through 8 and 11 through 13. Appellants argue (brief, pages 12 through 23) that none of the claimed steps and apparatus for reducing RRO signals in the SPE signal is disclosed in Andrews, whereas the examiner contends (answer, pages 4 through 8) that all of the claimed steps and apparatus are met by the teachings of Andrews. 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007