Appeal 2007-1908
Application 10/442,950
1 fact 13 we find that the master shifter described in Coburn ‘761 moves from
2 one end of the shaft to the other so that all of the heads are moved to one end
3 of shaft 30. We find from this description that there is a park position at one
4 end of the shaft that the heads are moved to as part of a sequence changing
5 the position of the heads. Thus, we find that the Coburn patents teach the
6 claimed origin position since the heads are moved to the parked position
7 from their original position as part of a sequence of moving the heads to
8 their next position. However, from the sequencing described in the
9 remainder of fact 13, we find that the heads are moved as a group and only
10 the last head is individually moved. Thus, we find no description in the
11 Coburn patents that would have moved the heads individually to the origin
12 position or to their next position.
13 Turning to Miller, Appellant does not contest the description of Miller
14 but rather asserts that Miller does not make up for the deficiencies of the
15 Coburn patents. From facts 19-22 we find that Miller would have suggested
16 using programs for moving the heads. However, we agree with Appellant
17 that Miller does not make up for the deficiencies of the Coburn patents.
18 Turning to the Hirakawa patent, we find from fact 24 a description of
19 moving the heads individually or as a group. From fact 26 we find that the
20 heads are moved individually from the origin position to their next position.
21 However, from fact 32 we find that the heads are moved to the storage
22 position together. From facts 32-34 we find that although the heads are
23 moved individually to their next or set positions, there is no description of
24 moving the heads to an origin position individually. Thus, although
25 Hirakawa would have suggested moving the heads individually from the
20
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013