Appeal No. 1998-0828
Application 08/438,091
teachings of Mori and Chi [brief, pages 9-13]. The examiner
responds that Chi teaches to compensate for the offset between
integral read and write heads [answer, page 11].
We do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 2
and 27 because the examiner has failed to negate the persuasive
arguments of appellants. We agree with appellants that Chi
appears to show the compensation of offset which is built into a
single actuator. The examiner has not pointed to two separate
actuators as required by the claims. Although Mori shows
different actuators, these actuators do not compensate for offset
resulting from spaced disc accessing elements. Therefore, there
is no motivation from within Mori and Chi as to why Mori, which
does not relate to offset compensation, would have been modified
to account for such compensation as taught by Chi. We also find
no teaching within the applied references that the second
actuator is controlled between read and write operations as
recited in claims 2 and 27. Since appellants’ arguments are
persuasive of error in the examiner’s rejection, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 2 and 27.
-11-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007