Appeal No. 2007-0464
Application 09/964,874
The claimed limitation need only read on the operation of Takagi once, i.e., a single time, no
matter how long Takagi’s disk drive operates. And it does. It always does for that temperature
measured immediately after the temperature measurement resulting in the last control
adjustment. The claim limitation at issue reads on Takagi’s disclosure for the pairs of
temperature measurements including one at the time of a control adjustment and the one
immediately thereafter. Claim 25 is sufficiently broad that the comparison need only be made
once. The limitation does not have to be met for each successive pairs of temperature
measurements. That is not what the claim requires. Moreover, during examination before the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, claim terms are properly construed according to their
broadest reasonable interpretation not inconsistent with the specification. We have no reason to
read into the claim a requirement that for each pair of two successive temperature measurements,
a determination of difference be made and that whenever the difference exceeds a predetermined
value the focus or tracking offset be reset. That would be an unduly narrow interpretation.
Conclusion
The rejection of claim 24 as anticipated by Otsuka under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 10-11 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the
combined teachings of Kulakowski and either Tsuchimochi or Tsutsui is reversed.
§ 102(e) is reversed.
The rejection of claims 12-13 and 26-27 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
the combined teachings of Kulakowski and either Takasugi or Davis is reversed.
The rejection of claim 25 for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Otsuka and
Kulakowski is reversed.
19
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013