Ex Parte Fukushima

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

11125597 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 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.
11/125,597 05/09/2005 Craig N. Fukushima SJ09-2001-0043 US2 3283
81000 7590 09/26/2012
HITACHI C/O MURABITO HAO & BARNES LLP
Two North Market Street
3rd Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
EXAMINER
HABERMEHL, JAMES LEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2012 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 CRAIG N. FUKUSHIMA
_____________

Appeal 2010-005213
Application 11/125,597
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, BRYAN F. MOORE, and RAMA G. ELLURU,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005213
Application 11/125,597

2
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-6, 15-20, 22, 23 and 25-28. Claims 8-14 and 24 are
cancelled. Br. 4. Claims 7 and 21 are allowed. Id. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to an improved servo burst pattern for
a hard disk drive. See Spec. p. 1, ll. 6-8.

Claims 1 and 22 are representative of the invention and are
reproduced below:
1. A storage medium comprising:
a disk surface comprising concentric tracks and a
plurality of servo sectors each having recorded therein servo
information that is seamless and untrimmed, said servo
information for track positioning of a head; and
wherein said servo information comprises:
a primary burst set comprising a first servo data burst
extending along a first radial line and a second servo data burst
extending along an adjacent second radial line and comprising
bursts that are positioned in between bursts of said first servo
data burst, said primary burst set for defining positions of said
concentric tracks; and
at least two secondary burst sets adjacent but radially
offset from said primary burst set and each radially offset from
each other.

22. In a disk drive apparatus, a method of positioning a head
comprising the steps of:
traversing said head over a storage medium having stored
thereon servo sectors which contain a primary burst set, a
radially offset first secondary burst set and a radially offset
Appeal 2010-005213
Application 11/125,597

3
second secondary burst set wherein said primary burst set
defines a track pitch of said disk medium and wherein said first
and second secondary burst sets are shifted along their
respective radial lines with respect to said primary burst set;
generating a first position error signal in response to said head
traversing said primary burst set;
generating a second position error signal in response to
said head traversing said first secondary burst set;
generating a third position error signal in response to said
head traversing said second secondary burst set; and
using linear regions of said first, second and third
position error signals to adjust a track position of said head.

REFERENCES
VOLZ US 5,867,341 Feb. 2, 1999
EHRLICH US 6,519,107 B1 Feb. 11, 2003

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-6 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being
anticipated by Ehrlich. Ans. 3-5. Claims 22 and 25-28 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Volz. Ans. 5. Claim 23 is rejected
under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Ehlich and Volz. Ans. 6.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that:
1. Ehlich discloses “a first servo data burst extending along a first radial
line and a second servo data burst extending along an adjacent second
Appeal 2010-005213
Application 11/125,597

4
radial line and comprising bursts that are positioned in between bursts
of said first servo data burst” (Independent claim 1) 1; and
2. Volz discloses “using linear regions of said first, second and third
position error signals to adjust a track position of said head”
(Independent claim 22)?
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. 102(e) - Ehrlich
Claims 1-6 and 15-20
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-6 and 15-20. Claim 1 requires “a first servo data burst
extending along a first radial line and a second servo data burst extending
along an adjacent second radial line and comprising bursts that are
positioned in between bursts of said first servo data burst.” Independent
claim 15 contains a similar limitation.
Appellant assert that “Ehrlich does not anticipate ‘a primary burst set
comprising a first servo data burst extending along a first radial line and a
second servo data burst extending along an adjacent second radial line and
comprising bursts that are positioned in between bursts of said first servo
data burst.”’ App. Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellant
contends “Ehrlich disclose[s] a primary burst set of bursts A, B and C where
no bursts that are adjacent to either bursts A, B or C are positioned between
the bursts of A, B or C. Rather Ehrlich discloses bursts A, B and C only
partially radially offset from an adjacent burst.” Id.

1 Appellant makes additional arguments regarding claims 1. App. Br. 9-11.
We do not reach these additional issues since this issue is dispositive of
claim 1.
Appeal 2010-005213
Application 11/125,597

5
The Examiner finds that bursts 22A and 22B in Ehlich correspond to
the first servo burst and second servo burst. However, burst 22A and 22E
are not next to each other, but rather bursts 22B, 22C, and 22D are
intervening between burst 22A and burst 22E. See, Ehlich, Fig. 8. The
Examiner attempts to resolve this problem by noting that:
Considering that appellant also claims at least two secondary
burst sets are all adjacent [to] the primary burst set, and the
specification and drawings only disclose the arrangement of the
primary set followed by one secondary set followed by another
secondary burst set and optionally even another after that, the
examiner concludes that the broadest reasonable interpretation
of "adjacent" is that all the servo bursts are grouped generally
together in the same servo sector, and therefore in similar
fashion the burst sets of Ehrlich et al., such as is shown in
Figure 8 for example, are all adjacent to each other.

Ans. 9-10. We disagree. Initially, we note that the Specification does not
state that grouping together in a sector implies adjacency. In fact, claim 1
recites that the burst sets are adjacent to other sets and that individual bursts
are adjacent to other individual bursts. Claim 1, see also Spec. p. 19, ll. 403-
416.
We find that the Examiner’s interpretation of “adjacent” is too broad.
For example, we note that the court’s interpretation of “adjacent” in Free
Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int'l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) is
instructive. The term should be assigned its ordinary meaning, and
understood as broadly as reasonable in light of the specification. In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The ordinary meaning of “adjacent”
describes things that are “‘relatively near and having nothing of the same
kind intervening.”’ See Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the
Appeal 2010-005213
Application 11/125,597

6
English Language Unabridged 26 (2002), quoted in Free Motion, 423 F.3d
at 1349 n.3. (Id.) We find that the Specification consistently refers to bursts
that are next to each other, without another intervening burst, as being
“adjacent.” Spec. p. 3, ll. 72-74, p. 18, 391-393, p. 19, ll. 403-416, p. 20, ll.
441-442, and p. 21, ll. 462-464. Therefore, we construe adjacent to mean
“relatively near and having nothing of the same kind intervening.”
Given the construction above, the Examiner has not shown that Ehlich
discloses “a first servo data burst extending along a first radial line and a
second servo data burst extending along an adjacent second radial line and
comprising bursts that are positioned in between bursts of said first servo
data burst.” Thus, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6
and 15-20.
35 U.S.C. 102(e) – Volz
Claims 22 and 25-28
We discern no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 25-
28. Independent claim 22 requires “using linear regions of said first, second
and third position error signals to adjust a track position of said head.”
Claims 25-28, not argued separately, depend from claim 22 and stand or fall
with that claim.
Appellant argues that because Volz “disclos[es] the track position
error based on the track number and discrete burst amplitudes,” Volz does
not anticipate the limitation ”using linear regions of said first, second and
third position error signals to adjust a track position of said head,” as
claimed. Br. 13. We are not persuaded by this argument.
Appeal 2010-005213
Application 11/125,597

7
Volz discloses that Xpe is “the track position error.” Col. 6, ll. 53-54.
Further, Volz discloses that “additional linear regions in the Xpe calculation
within a track are provided.” Volz. Col. 9, ll. 63-64. Based on these textual
portions of Volz, we agree with the examiner that Volz discloses “using
linear regions of said first, second and third position error signals to adjust a
track position of said head.”
Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 22, and 25-28
under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Volz.
35 U.S.C. 103(a) - Ehrlich and Volz
Claim 23, not argued separately, depends from claim 22 and stands or
falls with that claim. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the
Examiner rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Ehlich and Volz.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3-5, 8-10, 12, 13 and 38-42
is reversed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22, 23, 25-28 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

Appeal 2010-005213
Application 11/125,597

8

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ke