Appeal No. 1998-0828
Application 08/438,091
We also do not sustain the rejection of any of the claims
which depend from claims 2 or 27. Neither Pierce, Elliott,
Nihei, Frandsen or Imamura, either alone or in combination,
overcomes the deficiencies in the teachings of Mori alone or Mori
in view of Chi as discussed above.
We now consider the rejection of independent claim 1
based on Mori and Elliott. The examiner indicates how he finds
the invention of claim 1 to be obvious [answer, page 7].
Appellants argue that claim 1 not only recites the two actuators
as in claims 2 and 27, but also recites that the adjustment for
the offset is based upon the radial position of the track.
Appellants argue that Elliott does not teach or suggest a system
for compensating for offset variations between read and write
transducers and a data track based upon the x-y orientation of
read and write transducers at various radial positions of the
data heads [brief, pages 13-17]. The examiner disagrees [answer,
page 11].
We agree with appellants for reasons set forth in the
brief. We do not find the transducer having a pair of spaced
disc accessing elements and the second actuator for controlling
the air bearing based on the radial position of the track as
claimed. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1.
-12-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007