Appeal No. 2001-0476
Application No. 08/768,231
Our reviewing court has further stated that claims are construed
in light of the specification. D.M.I., Inc. v. Deere & Co.,
755 F.2d 1570, 1574, 225 USPQ 236, 238 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In a first instance, we note that the claims are not all of
the same scope. More specifically, and as stated supra in
discussing the background of the invention, we note that
independent claims 1 and 41 include the limitation "wherein said
servo identification is recorded in A and B portions of said
servo bursts to enable detection of said servo identification by
a head when said head is in an off-track state and an on-track
state." We further note that independent claims 3 and 44 do not
include such a limitation. To the contrary, they include the
limitation "wherein said servo identification is recorded in P
and Q portions of said servo bursts to enable detection of said
servo identification by a head when said head is on an even
numbered track and an odd numbered track." However, this
limitation is not found in claims 1 and 41. We also note that
neither of these limitations is found in independent claims 13,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007