Appeal No. 1998-0828
Application 08/438,091
rejection of claim 19, we do not sustain the rejection of claim
23 for the same reasons discussed above.
We now consider the rejection of independent claims 2 and
27 based on Mori and Chi. The examiner finds that Mori teaches
the invention of these claims except for the claimed control
between read and write operations. The examiner cites Chi as
teaching that it was known to calibrate for the offset between
read and write heads. The examiner finds that it would have been
obvious to the artisan to modify Mori as taught by Chi to permit
accurate tracking regardless of the offset between the read and
write heads [answer, pages 6-7].
Appellants argue that Mori relates to a linear actuator
system to accommodate for offset between a servo head and data
heads, not between read and write transducers on a single head.
Appellants argue that Mori discloses nothing about a transducer
having a pair of spaced disc accessing elements or for
compensating for the position offset between spaced read and
write transducers. Appellants argue that although Chi discloses
a system for adjusting for the offset between read and write
transducers on a common support, Chi does not teach the use of a
second actuator for accomplishing this offset compensation.
Appellants also argue that there is no motivation to combine the
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007