Ex Parte Indeck

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2003

08422849 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2003)

1 Application for patent filed April 17, 1995, which is a continuation-
in-part of Application No. 08/100,567, filed July 30, 1993, now abandoned.
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 38
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte RONALD S. INDECK
____________
Appeal No. 2001-2402
Application No. 08/422,8491
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before RUGGIERO, DIXON, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 16-21, 23-25 and 28-31. Claims
3, 9-15, 22, 26, 27 and 32-44 have been canceled.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
Appellant’s invention is directed to the configuration of
read and write transducers arranged on a magnetic recording head
for accurately reading and writing narrow tracks. During each
Appeal No. 2001-2402
Application No. 08/422,849
2
read and write operation, the read transducers are positioned on
the recording head such that one read transducer always tracks a
servo track (specification, page 2). According to Appellant, by
spacing the write and read transducers uniformly but at different
intervals, a read transducer is always indexed over a servo track
and another read transducer is also indexed immediately to the
right or left of other servo tracks (specification, page 4).
Thus, accurate transducer positioning and tracking as well as
maximizing the useable space on the magnetic medium can be
achieved (id.).
Representative independent claims 1 and 16 are reproduced
below:
1. A magnetic recording head, comprising:
a plurality of write transducers configured both for
writing a plurality of servo tracks simultaneously on a
magnetic medium and for writing a plurality of data tracks
on the magnetic medium, said servo tracks and said data
tracks each having substantially the same width; and
a plurality of read transducers configured for tracking
the servo tracks as the write transducers write the data
tracks, wherein the write transducers are equally spaced
cross-track from one another, the read transducers are
equally spaced cross-track from one another, and the cross-
track spacing between said write transducers is different
from the cross-track spacing between said read transducers.
Appeal No. 2001-2402
Application No. 08/422,849
3
16. A method for using a magnetic recording head
having a plurality of read transducers and a plurality of
write transducers, comprising the steps of:
writing a plurality of servo tracks simultaneously with
the write transducers; and
writing a plurality of data tracks with the write
transducers while at least one of the read transducers
tracks one of the servo tracks, said servo tracks and said
data tracks each having substantially the same width.
The Examiner relies on the following reference in rejecting
the claims:
Crouse et al (Crouse) 4,613,915 Sep. 23, 1986
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, 16-21, 23-25 and 28-31 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Crouse.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 35, mailed
February 27, 2001) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning in
support of the rejection, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 34,
filed December 5, 2000) and the reply brief (Paper No. 36, filed
May 1, 2001) for Appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellant points out that claims 1 and 16 require a magnetic
recording head wherein the same plurality of write transducers
write both servo tracks and data tracks (brief, pages 6 & 7).
Appellant further points to Figure 6 of Crouse and asserts that
transducers 4 arranged on head slider 33 are configured to both
Appeal No. 2001-2402
Application No. 08/422,849
4
write and read data tracks, but not to write servo tracks (brief,
page 7 and reply brief, page 2). Further referring to column 10,
lines 39-46 of Crouse and Figure 6, Appellant points out that
Crouse discloses a separate servo track writing transducer “servo
writer” that is exclusively used for writing servo tracks (brief,
pages 7 & 8). Appellant also indicates that the specific claimed
spacing between the write transducers and the read transducers is
not disclosed in Crouse since the prior art reference uses twin
read/write heads that read and write pairs of data tracks (brief,
page 9). Additionally, Appellant argues that since the same head
is used for read and write, contrary to the claimed spacing
requirement, the cross-track spacing between these read
transducers must necessarily be the same as that of the write
transducers (brief, page 10 and reply brief, page 4).
In response to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner asserts
that Crouse discloses “a group of ganged multi (plurality) write
transducers that are configured to write a plurality of servo
tracks and write a plurality of data tracks” (answer, page 8).
The Examiner apparently relies on column 10, lines 47-62 and
column 11, lines 25-31 to conclude that the “servo writer” and
the read-write transducers of Crouse are the same (answer, page
4). The Examiner also argues that the spacing between the write
Appeal No. 2001-2402
Application No. 08/422,849
5
and read transducers are disclosed by Crouse, as shown in Figures
1 and 2a, to be equal (answer, pages 8 & 9). In particular, the
Examiner asserts that because of the channel spacing and the
existence of gap 7 between the magnetic sensors, “the cross-track
spacing between the write head and the read head will be
different in the channel cross-track spacing arrangement and the
spacing cross the track” (answer, page 9).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947
(Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
After a review of Crouse, we agree with Appellant’s
assertion that Crouse uses different transducers for writing data
tracks and servo tracks whereas claims 1 and 16 clearly require
that the same write transducers be used for writing data tracks
and servo tracks. In that regard, Crouse merely provides for
“servo writer” transducers that are dedicated to writing only the
servo tracks (col. 10, lines 32-62). We find the Examiner’s
Appeal No. 2001-2402
Application No. 08/422,849
6
characterization of different transducers used for read/write and
servo writing to be unsupported by any teaching in Crouse.
Additionally, the different spacing that the Examiner relies on
in Figures 1 and 2a, although appears to be equal across the
tracks both for the data tracks and servo tracks, have also
cross-track spacing that appears to be identical as they
alternate (col. 5, lines 33-49). Thus, Crouse further fails to
disclose the specific recited spacing such that the cross-track
spacing between the write transducers is different from the
cross-track spacing between the read transducers, as required by
claim 1. Accordingly, Crouse does not anticipate claims 1 and
16, and the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-8, 16-21,
23-25 and 28-31 over Crouse cannot be sustained.
Appeal No. 2001-2402
Application No. 08/422,849
7
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-8, 16-21, 23-25 and 28-31 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is reversed.
REVERSED
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MDS/hh
Appeal No. 2001-2402
Application No. 08/422,849
8
THOMPSON COBURN, LLP
ONE U.S. BANK PLAZA
STE. 3500
ST. LOUIS, MO 63101