Appeal 2007-0915
Application 10/764,946
1 A hard disk drive (HDD) comprising:
2 at least one rotatable disk;
3 at least one data transfer element; and
4 at least one HDD controller controlling the data transfer element to
5 execute commands in a queue, at least one command being selected
6 for execution based on at least one of: an optimized throughput
7 benefit, or an optimized operation rate benefit, wherein the throughput
8 benefit is determined based at least in part on a pipe length.
9 3. Instead of reciting “or an optimized operation rate benefit” original
10 claim 1 recited “and an optimized operation rate benefit.” (‘946, original
11 claim 1.)
12 4. In a paper dated JUN 01 2006 and styled “RESPONSE TO
13 TELEPHONE INTERVIEW,” Applicants explained the change from “and”
14 to “or” as follows:
15 With respect to the changes in the claims from “and” to “or” in
16 certain instances, Applicant has been made aware of Superguide
17 Corp. v. DirectTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir.
18 2004) in which a claim recitation of “at least one of A, B, C,
19 and D” was held to minimally require at least one element from
20 each of the categories A, B, C, and D, not one or more elements
21 from one or more categories as intended in the present case,
22 with the Federal Circuit noting that for the latter interpretation
23 to hold, the conjunctive “or” should be used. Accordingly, the
24 present amendment is believed to reconcile, with the
25 Superguide case, both Applicant’s intended claim scope and
26 what Applicant believes to have been the examiner’s
27 understanding of the claimed invention when examination was
28 conducted.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013