Ex Parte Chang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 29, 2004

09768974 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 2004)

-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte KEN CHANG

Appeal No. 2004-0723
Application No. 09/768,974

ON BRIEF

Before KIMLIN, KRASS and PAWLIKOWSKI, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KIMLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-30,
35 and 37-39. Claims 31-34, 36 and 40, the other claims
remaining in the present application, are objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim. Claims 1, 13 and 35 are
illustrative:
1. A positioner for moving an E-block and a data transducer
of a disk drive relative to a storage disk, the E-block having a
longitudinal axis, the positioner comprising:
a magnet assembly producing a magnetic field; and
Appeal No. 2004-0723
Application No. 09/768,974
-2-
a coil array that couples to the E-block and is positioned
near the magnet assembly, the coil array being a generally
D-shaped loop including a first segment that is positioned
substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the
E-block, the first segment being adapted to interact with the
magnetic field to move the E-block relative to the storage disk.
13. A head stack assembly for moving a data transducer of a
disk drive relative to a target track of a storage disk, the head
stack assembly comprising:
an E-block having a longitudinal axis;
a transducer assembly secured to the E-block, the transducer
assembly including a data transducer;
a positioner including (i) a magnet assembly producing a
magnetic field, (ii) a coil array secured to the E-block and
positioned near the magnet assembly, the coil array being a
generally D-shaped loop including a first segment positioned
substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the first
segment including (i) a first portion, and (ii) a second portion;
and
a control system that directs current to the coil array to
move the data transducer relative to the target track.
35. The positioner of claim 23 wherein the magnetic arrays
extend a first distance parallel to a longitudinal axis of a head
stack assembly that includes the data transducer, the coil array
extends a second distance parallel to the longitudinal axis, and
the first distance is greater than the second distance.
The examiner relies upon the following reference in the
rejection of the appealed claims:
Tohkairin 5,963,398 Oct. 5, 1999
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a positioner
for moving an E-block and a data transducer of a disk drive
relative to a storage disk. The positioner comprises a magnet
Appeal No. 2004-0723
Application No. 09/768,974
-3-
assembly (52) and a coil array (78) which is a generally D-shaped
loop. The coil array includes a first segment that is substan-
tially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the E-block, and
it is the first segment that moves the E-block relative to the
storage disk.
Appealed claims 1-30, 35 and 37-39 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Tohkairin.
Appellant separately groups the claims on appeal as follows:
(I) claims 13, 20, 23, 29 and 30;
(II) claims 24-28, 37 and 38;
(III) claim 35;
(IV) claim 39;
(V) claims 1-9, 11, 12, 14-19, 21 and 22; and
(VI) claim 10
Accordingly, the claims of groups (I), (II) and (V) stand or fall
together.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions advanced
by appellant and the examiner. As a result, we will not sustain
the examiner's rejection of claims 1-9, 11, 12, 14-19, 21 and 22
(group (V) and claim 10 (group (VI)). We will, however, sustain
the examiner's rejection of claims 13, 20, 23, 29 and 30 (group
(I)); claims 24-28, 37 and 38 (group (II)); claim 35 (group (III))
and claim 39 (group (IV)).
Appeal No. 2004-0723
Application No. 09/768,974
-4-
Claim 1 requires that the first segment (80) of the coil
array is positioned substantially perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the E-block and is "adapted to interact with
the magnetic field to move the E-block relative to the storage
disk." We concur with appellant that Tohkairin does not describe
this claimed feature within the meaning of § 102. The examiner
points to element 90-3 of Tohkairin's Figure 14 as corresponding
to the claimed first segment of the coil array. However, as
argued by appellant at page 6 of the Brief, Tohkairin expressly
discloses that rear coil portions 90-3 and 90-4 of the coil 90
impart no rotational torque even if a magnetic flux passes
through such portions (see the reference at column 23, line 57 to
column 24, line 7). While the examiner explains that Figure 14
of Tohkairin shows an interaction between portion 90-3 of the
coil and the magnetic field of the lower and upper magnets 154
and 156, the examiner does not explain how such interaction
results in the claim requirement of moving the E-block relative
to the storage disk. The section of Tohkairin cited by appellant
specifically states that portion 90-3 does not generate any
rotational torque.
The rejection of the remaining claims on appeal is another
matter, inasmuch as the claims do not contain the requirement
Appeal No. 2004-0723
Application No. 09/768,974
-5-
that the first segment of the coil array is adapted to interact
with the magnetic field to move the E-block. As for appellant's
argument that claim 13 states "the coil array being a generally
D-shaped loop," we agree with the examiner that coil 90 of
Tohkairin assumes a generally D-shaped loop. Since, as
maintained by the examiner, "there are no right angles in the
movable coil of Fig. 14" (page 7 of Answer, penultimate
paragraph), we do not subscribe to appellant's position that coil
90 of the reference "is a generally rectangularly-shaped loop"
(page 7 of Brief, second paragraph). It must be emphasized that
the claims only require that the loop of the coil is generally D-
shaped, and we find merit in the examiner's rationale that "[t]he
shape of a 'D' is highly interpretive, as is evident in the
numerous script styles with which 'D' can be written or printed"
(page 7 of Answer, penultimate paragraph).
Concerning separately argued claims 24-28, 37 and 38, we
concur with the examiner that first segment 90-3 of Tohkairin is
linear (straight) and second segment 90-4 forms an arc (curve),
thereby meeting the claim 24 recitation that "the first segment
is substantially linear and the second segment forms an arc."
As for the relative distances regarding the magnetic arrays
and the coil array recited in claim 35, appellant has not refuted
the factual determination of the examiner as depicted in the
Appeal No. 2004-0723
Application No. 09/768,974
-6-
drawing that is part of the Examiner's Answer. This also holds
for separately argued claim 39. We note that appellant states
that "[c]laim 39 distinguishes over Tohkairin for the reasons set
forth above for the Group II and III claims" (page 8 of Brief,
paragraph four).
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we will sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 13, 20, 23-30, 35 and 37-39, but
reverse the examiner's rejection of claims 1-12, 14-19, 21
and 22. Accordingly, the examiner's decision rejecting the
appealed claims is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
ERROL A. KRASS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
BEVERLY PAWLIKOWSKI )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ECK:clm
Appeal No. 2004-0723
Application No. 09/768,974
-7-
David M. Sigmond
Maxtor Corp.
2452 Clover Basin Drive
Longmont, CO 80503