Appeal No. 2002-2009
Application 09/843,631
Likewise, the specification does not
somehow require that the calibration values
discussed at page 28 be flying height data
obtained from the disk drive at another
flying height or a predetermined flying
height. [Brief, top of page 9]
It is thus apparent to the reader that the functions
attributed to the detection circuit at the end of the noted
independent claims on appeal does perform its function
independently. The appellants' observations at page 9 of the
brief noted by the examiner at page 3 of the answer is misplaced
to the extent the examiner takes the view that the claims must
set forth language that limits the formulation or formation of
threshold values during a manufacturing operation of the disk
drive. Plainly, the artisan would not see that such would be a
requirement of the claims when read in light of the specification
as noted by us earlier in this opinion.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 47-67 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007