Appeal No. 2002-2027 Page 7
Application No. 09/209,304
“[T]he Board must give claims their broadest reasonable construction. . . .” In re
Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Here,
independent claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "determining a
force constant error based on the comparison between the velocity
error over the selected portion of acceleration time and a reference value." Similarly,
independent claim 9 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "a current driver
for the voice coil which determines an actual velocity of the actuator and transducer,
wherein an amount of current delivered to the voice coil is determined, in part, by a
force constant error determined by a difference between the actual velocity and a
demand velocity during an acceleration phase of a movement of the actuator and
transducer." Giving the independent claims their broadest, reasonable construction, the
limitations require determining a force constant error based on the difference between
between a desired velocity and a measured velocity during the acceleration of a disc
drive's actuator.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "In rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. Section 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie
case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956
(Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007