Appeal No. 2002-2009
Application 09/843,631
flying height as noted by the examiner and discussed at pages 21
and 28 of the specification as filed. This comparison then is
used to determine if the head is within a proper flying height.
Rather than being independent as required by each of the
independent claims on appeal, the examiner takes the view that
when determining if a flying height is within an acceptable
range, the determination is therefore dependent upon known values
that, according to the threshold or calibration approach, have
been obtained from at least a maximum flying height. The
examiner therefore concludes that the language in question in the
independent claims on appeal is not supported by the written
disclosure.
In reversing this rejection, we are persuaded by appellants'
arguments beginning at page 6 of the brief on appeal, making
particular note to the portions quoted from the specification at
pages 6-8.
Based upon our study of the specification as filed, the
language at the end of the first group of independent claims
relating to "at other than the substantially constant flying
height" and the corresponding language at the other set of
independent claims relating to "at a predetermined flying height"
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007