Appeal No. 2002-2009
Application 09/843,631
a detection circuit that determines
whether the head is within an acceptable
flying height range in response to the first
and second data patterns while the head is at
a substantially constant flying height and
independently of flying height data obtained
from the disk drive at other than the
substantially constant flying height.
Correspondingly, the subject matter of independent claims 66
and 67 in dispute relates to the following feature at the end of
these independent claims on appeal:
a detection circuit that determines
whether the head is within an acceptable
flying height range in response to the first
and second data patterns while the head is at
a substantially constant flying height and
independently of flying height data obtained
from the disk drive at a predetermined flying
height.
The distinctions between these common features of all these
independent claims is found in the language at the end of the
noted clauses relating to the disc drive head being "at other
than the substantially constant flying height" and the language
of the disc drive head being "at a predetermined flying height."
There are no references relied by the examiner.
Claims 47-67 stand rejected under the first paragraph of
35 U.S.C. § 112, since, in the examiner's view, the claimed
subject matter was not described in the specification in such
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007