Ex Parte Biskeborn

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2012

10754392 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/754,392 01/09/2004 Robert Glenn Biskeborn SJ0920030016US1 7827
44190 7590 10/26/2012
WALTER W. DUFT
LAW OFFICES OF WALTER W. DUFT
8616 MAIN ST
SUITE 2
WILLIAMSVILLE, NY 14221
EXAMINER
NEGRON, DANIELL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROBERT GLENN BISKEBORN
____________

Appeal 2010-006237
Application 10/754,392
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT,
and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006237
Application 10/754,392

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-7, 10, 21-26, and 28. Claims 11-20, 27, and 31-40 have been
canceled and claims 8, 9, 29, and 30 have been withdrawn from
consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention is directed to tape drive systems and methods
for monitoring tape fly height between a magnetic recording medium and a
transducing head (see Spec. 3:11-22).
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
1. A method for monitoring fly height between a
magnetic recording medium and a transducing head,
comprising:
calculating a magnetic spacing change value relative to the
recording medium and the transducing head; and
adjusting the magnetic spacing change value as necessary to
reflect transducing head wear.

The Rejections
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Smith (US 2002/0197936 A1). (See Ans. 3).
Claims 2 and 4-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith and Dakroub (US 7,113,354 B2). (See Ans. 3-5).
Appeal 2010-006237
Application 10/754,392

3
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith, Dakroub, and Abraham (US 6,239,936 B1). (See
Ans. 5-6).
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith and Muranushi (US 5,153,785). (See Ans. 6).
Claims 21, 22, 24-26, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Dakroub and Smith. (See Ans. 6-8).
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dakroub, Smith, and Abraham. (See Ans. 8-9).

ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Smith, the Examiner finds that
paragraphs 26 and 27 of the reference disclose all the recited features (Ans.
3). The Examiner specifically characterizes measuring the second magnetic
spacing disclosed in paragraph 28 of Smith as the claimed calculating a
magnetic spacing change, which is adjusted with respect to the initial
spacing measurement (Ans. 10-11).
Appellant contends that Smith relates to a burnishing process during
drive manufacturing such that the pad height is adjusted by burnishing the
slider pad 54 until the final pad height is achieved (App. Br. 7). Appellant
further contends that, instead of adjusting magnetic spacing to account for
transducer head wear, Smith uses spacing measurement to monitor the
burnishing process that removes the pad material (App. Br. 8-9).
We agree with Appellant. Smith’s measurement of the magnetic
spacing described in paragraphs 26-29 is used to determine whether a
predetermined wear level of the rear pad 54 is achieved. In other words, the
Appeal 2010-006237
Application 10/754,392

4
wear level is adjusted to reflect the space measurement used to arrive at the
target spacing value (see Smith, ¶ [0029] – [0030]), which is opposite the
claimed requirement. As such, we conclude that Smith does not anticipate
the subject matter of claim 1.
With respect to independent claim 21, the Examiner finds Dakroub
discloses monitoring fly height based on sensing media noise and further
relies on Smith for teaching similar features recited in claim 1. For the same
reasons discussed above, we also conclude that the combination of Dakroub
and Smith does not teach or suggest the recited features of claim 21. The
Examiner has not identified, nor do we find any, teachings in Abraham or
Muranushi to cure the above-identified deficiency of Smith. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1, nor the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejections of claims 2-7, 10, 21-26, and 28

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7, 10, 21-26, and 28 is
reversed.

REVERSED

tj