Appeal No. 2001-1211
Application No. 09/070,580
smooth and efficient acceleration of the head is not the same or
an equivalent to the “position means” described in the
specification (brief, pages 10-12 and reply brief, page 9).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that even if the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is invoked,
claim 8 does not specifically call for the servo functions but
rather, is limited to the disclosed coil driver 152 and coil 113
as the head driving elements (answer, pages 5 & 6). The Examiner
concludes that voice coil 111 in Hashimoto provides a structure
identical to Appellants’ disclosed structure that corresponds to
the claimed “position means” and therefore, anticipates claim 8
(answer, page 8).
Before addressing the Examiner’s rejection based on prior
art, it is essential that we understand the claimed subject
matter and determine its scope. Accordingly, as required by our
reviewing court, we will initially direct our attention to
Appellants’ claim 8 in order to determine its scope. “[T]he name
of the game is the claim.” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claims will be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
the specification, and limitations appearing in the specification
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007