Appeal No. 2001-1211
Application No. 09/070,580
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference
to the answer (Paper No. 18, mailed January 4, 2001) for the
Examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the rejection, the
brief (Paper No. 17, filed November 21, 2000) and the reply brief
(Paper No. 19, filed March 5, 2001) for Appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellants argue that Hashimoto cannot anticipate the
subject matter of claim 8 as the reference does not disclose all
of the elements for performing the claimed function.
Additionally, Appellants argue that the Examiner did not make the
necessary findings related to the functions and means specified
in claim 8, i.e., “position means ... for positioning the head
adjacent the tracks of the disc” (brief, page 10 and reply brief,
page 8). Appellants further point out that the position means of
claim 8 corresponds to the entire disclosed servo circuit
including digital signal processor 148 and memory 150 which
stores programming for deceleration of the head to a specific
track as depicted in figures 3, 8 and 11 (brief, page 10 and
reply brief, page 6). Appellants further assert that Hashimoto’s
system for
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007