Ex Parte Church et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 31, 2008

11168816 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 31, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT BILLINGS CHURCH, SUMIT CHANDRA, RORY
STEPHAN GOODMAN, MUCHONG LIM, SERENE JOOKIANG LOW,
and ISHAK SUGENG ISKANDAR
____________

Appeal 2009-0119
Application 11/168,816
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: December 31, 2008
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-19, which are all of the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2009-0119
Application 11/168,816

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for loading a data transfer
head to a data storage medium to disperse contamination present in the
storage device (Spec. 1-2). According to Appellants, by defining a
predetermined quantity of medium rotation prior to permitting the head to
travel and selectively moving the head at a relatively reduced velocity,
adverse effects of contamination can be reduced (Spec. 5:26 through 6:23).
Independent Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
1. A method for loading a data transfer head to a data storage
medium comprising:

determining a desired maximum displacement between a
parked position of the head and an encroaching position of the head in
relation to a selected data storage track of the medium;

determining a spin interval associated with a predetermined
quantity of medium movement before the head reaches the
encroaching position;

rotating the data storage medium at a beginning of the spin
interval; and

moving the head during the spin interval from the parked
position and at a velocity resulting in the head being displaced at the
end of the spin interval a distance that is less than the maximum
displacement.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Pan US 6,590,731 B1 Jul. 8, 2003

Heydt US 6,876,510 B2 Apr. 5, 2005

2
Appeal 2009-0119
Application 11/168,816

Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Pan.
Claims 4, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pan in view of Heydt.
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we make reference to the Brief
and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellants and the Examiner.

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under
35 U.S.C. §§ 102(b) and 103(a). The issue specifically turns on whether Pan
anticipates Appellants’ claimed invention by disclosing the step of
“determining a spin interval associated with a predetermined quantity of
medium movement before the head reaches the encroaching position,” as
recited in claim 1.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Pan relates to head loading in a disk drive with reduced velocity
of the head during loading of the head onto the surface of a data storage
medium (Abstract).
2. As depicted in Figures 3, 4, and 9 of Pan, an electronics system
controls the movement of head arm assembly via voice coil motor 68 and
voice coil motor control circuit 79 and a read-write head control circuit 80.
The spinning of the storage medium is controlled via spindle motor control
circuit 76 and the spindle motor 82. The head loading and parking
programs, as well as other programs vital to the operation of the disk drive
are stored in memory 72 and executed on CPU 71, which in turn, uses the
3
Appeal 2009-0119
Application 11/168,816

programs to control and monitor the operation of the various electronic
subsystems’ components, i.e., control circuits 76, 79, and 80. (Col. 7, ll. 7-
26).
3. Pan discloses that the spindle motor control circuit 76, which is
electrically coupled to spindle motor 82, controls the power to spindle motor
82 as needed to maintain the proper rotational speed (col. 7, ll. 27-30).
4. Pan further discloses that the voice coil motor control circuit 78
is electrically coupled to voice coil motor 68. By providing voltage and
current to voice coil motor 68, control circuit 79 controls head loading, head
parking, and the movement of head arm assembly 62 over medium 14. (Col.
7, ll. 30-34).
5. Pan also provides for the read-write head control circuit 80
which controls the operation of heads 18, 19. By supplying a voltage signal
to heads 18, 19 data is written to medium 14. By reading the voltage from
heads 18, 19 data is read from medium 14. (Col. 7, ll. 34-38).
6. During head loading and head parking, medium 14 spins at the
proper rate via spindle motor control 76, voice coil 68 moves the head arm
assembly 62 between the parked position and medium 14, and read-write
control circuit 80 provides location data about the head arm assembly 62.
That is, disk drive servo systems typically use embedded position feedback
in their voice coil motor servo loops which are read by the read-write heads
and provide position information to the drive so that a track location on the
medium can be determined. (Col. 7, ll. 39-53).
7. During head loading from a load ramp, before the heads have
reached the medium surface, no positioning information is available.
Accordingly, the position of the heads along the ramp cannot be determined
4
Appeal 2009-0119
Application 11/168,816

without an additional sensor. Once the heads are loaded onto the medium,
the heads will emit a signal indicative of the signals on the medium surface,
such as servo sector information. The head load velocity of the heads over
the medium may be measured by reading a first position of the heads over
the medium, then reading a second position of the heads over the medium.
The head load velocity may then be calculated by subtracting the first
position from the second position, and dividing this result by the time
differential between the two readings. (Col. 7, l. 54 through col. 8, l. 2).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
“Anticipation of a claim requires a finding that the claim at issue ‘reads on’
a prior art reference.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778
F.2d 775, 781 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
ANALYSIS
As described above, Pan controls the speed of head loading and head
parking via the voice coil motor 68 and the voice coil motor control circuit
79, while the storage medium rotational speed is controlled by the spindle
motor 82 and its control circuit (FF 1-5). Pan determines the position of the
head based on the signals from the sensors on the tracks and calculates the
head load velocity based on the difference in two position readings (FF 6-7).
We disagree with the Examiner’s characterization of Pan’s general statement
5
Appeal 2009-0119
Application 11/168,816

regarding the storage medium rotational speed as the “spin interval” related
to a predetermined quantity of the medium movement (Ans. 5).
In fact, as argued by Appellants (App. Br. 8), the discussion of the
medium rotation velocity in Pan is limited to a general configuration of the
spindle motor and its control circuit for rotating the storage medium (FF 3).
The speed control scheme for head loading as described in Pan (FF 6-7)
relies on feedback information from positional sensors that measure the
difference in travel distance over a set time in order to determine the speed
of the head (FF 7). As such, the portions relied on by the Examiner include
no reference to a spin interval associated with a predetermined quantity of
medium movement. In other words, the Examiner has not shown that the
head loading speed control in Pan is based on the medium movement.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we find that the Examiner fails to make a
prima facie case that Pan anticipates claim 1 or independent claim 13 that
includes similar limitations. Therefore, in view of our analysis above, the
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-14, 16, 17, and 19 as anticipated
by Pan cannot be sustained. Additionally, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejections of claims 4, 15, and 18 over Pan in combination with Heydt
as the Examiner has not identified any teachings in Heydt related to spin
interval associated with a predetermined quantity of medium movement to
overcome the deficiencies of Pan discussed above.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-19 is reversed.

6
Appeal 2009-0119
Application 11/168,816

REVERSED

gvw

DAVID K. LUCENTE
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY, LLC
389 DISC DRIVE-COL2LGL
LONGMONT, CO 80503
7