Appeal 2007-0915
Application 10/764,946
1 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
2 appeal is:
3 Clegg US 6,721,845 B1 Apr. 13, 2004
4
5 Claims 1 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
6 unpatentable over Clegg (Final Rejection at 3 and Answer at 3).
7 BACKGROUND
8 The invention relates to a hard disk drive (HDD) that includes at least
9 one rotatable disk and at least one data transfer element. The data transfer
10 element is controlled by a controller, which executes commands in a queue.
11 Commands are selected to be executed based on either an optimized
12 throughput benefit, or an optimized operation rate benefit.
13 B. Issue
14 The issue is whether Applicants have shown that the Examiner has
15 failed to sufficiently demonstrate that there is a legal basis for rejecting
16 claims 1 and 5 over Clegg?
17 For the reasons that follow, Applicants have failed to demonstrate that
18 the Examiner’s rejection is legally incorrect.
19 C. Findings of fact (“FF”)
20 The record supports the following findings of fact as well as any other
21 findings of fact set forth in this opinion by at least a preponderance of the
22 evidence.
23 1. Applicants’ claims 1 and 5 are the subject of this appeal.
24 2. Claim 1 is as follows:
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013