Appeal No. 2001-2402
Application No. 08/422,849
write and read data tracks, but not to write servo tracks (brief,
page 7 and reply brief, page 2). Further referring to column 10,
lines 39-46 of Crouse and Figure 6, Appellant points out that
Crouse discloses a separate servo track writing transducer “servo
writer” that is exclusively used for writing servo tracks (brief,
pages 7 & 8). Appellant also indicates that the specific claimed
spacing between the write transducers and the read transducers is
not disclosed in Crouse since the prior art reference uses twin
read/write heads that read and write pairs of data tracks (brief,
page 9). Additionally, Appellant argues that since the same head
is used for read and write, contrary to the claimed spacing
requirement, the cross-track spacing between these read
transducers must necessarily be the same as that of the write
transducers (brief, page 10 and reply brief, page 4).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts
that Crouse discloses “a group of ganged multi (plurality) write
transducers that are configured to write a plurality of servo
tracks and write a plurality of data tracks” (answer, page 8).
The Examiner apparently relies on column 10, lines 47-62 and
column 11, lines 25-31 to conclude that the “servo writer” and
the read-write transducers of Crouse are the same (answer, page
4). The Examiner also argues that the spacing between the write
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007