Ex parte Hashimoto

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 15, 1999

08164783 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 15, 1999)

Application for patent filed December 10, 1993. According to appellant, the1
application is a continuation of Application 07/766,384, filed September 27, 1991, now
abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 29
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte SHUICHI HASHIMOTO
__________
Appeal No. 96-3420
Application 08/164,7831
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before THOMAS, CARMICHAEL, and LALL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of Claims 1-6,
8-15, and 17-21, which constitute all the claims remaining in
the application.
Claim 1 reads as follows:
Appeal No. 96-3420
Application 08/164,783
2
A servo head positioning method for controlling a
position of a servo head from a first track position on a disk
to a second track position on the disk during a seek
operation, said servo head reading a servo signal from tracks
formed on the disk, said servo head positioning method
comprising the steps of:
(a) setting an initial movement quantity of the servo
head and a predetermined access time in dependence upon the
initial movement quantity;
(b) controlling velocity and position of the servo head
depending on the initial movement quantity and a difference
between a present track position of the servo head and the
second track position;
(c) detecting when the servo head reaches the second
track position;
(d) detecting passage of the predetermined access time
from a start of the seek operation;
(e) ending the seek operation after said detecting in
step
(d) if said detecting in step (c) occurs earlier than said
detecting in step (d); and
(f) ending the seek operation after said detecting in
step (c) if said detecting in step (c) occurs later than said
detecting in step (d)
The examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Horie et al. (Horie) 5,016,126 May 14, 1991
OPINION
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Horie and admitted prior art.
Appeal No. 96-3420
Application 08/164,783
3
The invention relates to controlling the motion of a
servo head from one track position to a second track position
on a disk. The claims all require a procedure or means for
handling the situation where the step of “detecting when the
servo head reaches the second track position” occurs before
the step of “detecting passage of the predetermined access
time.” Appellant argues that the prior art does not disclose
such a procedure or means. Supplemental Reply Brief (Paper
No. 25) at 2. The examiner postulates that such a procedure
would take place in Horie if the head overshot the second
track position and then the seek operation ended after passage
of the predetermined time. Examiner’s Answer (Paper No. 22)
at 5-6.
The examiner’s interpretation of Horie supposes that the
second track position is detected when the head passes over
the second track position en route to an overshoot. The
examiner’s interpretation further supposes a condition in
which such detection could occur before the predetermined time
expires. The examiner’s interpretation even further supposes
Horie has a procedure or means for ending the seek operation
after the time is detected if such a condition were to occur.
Appeal No. 96-3420
Application 08/164,783
4
Horie’s Figure 3 suggests that the postulated condition
cannot occur because the track position detection step 308
occurs after the predetermined time expires at step 307.
Column 4, lines 36-49. Since we are unable to find that the
condition could occur in Horie, we are unable to assume that
Horie has a procedure or means for handling the condition.
The examiner’s interpretation of Horie is creative and
within the realm of possibilities, but is too speculative to
support the present rejection. The examiner does not rely on
the admitted prior art to bolster that interpretation. Upon
our own review, we are unable to find any additional support
for the rejection in Horie or in the admitted prior art.
Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of Claims 1-6, 8-15, and 17-21 is not
sustained.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Appeal No. 96-3420
Application 08/164,783
5
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
PARSHOTAM S. LALL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JTC/kis
STAAS & HALSEY
700 ELEVENTH STREET, N.W.
SUITE 500
WASHINGTON, DC 20001