Ex parte Jeong

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 26, 2000

08343939 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 26, 2000)

1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
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not written for publication and is not binding precedent of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. 40
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte MYUNG-CHAN JEONG
__________
Appeal No. 1998-0927
Application No. 08/343,939
__________
HEARD: Sep. 13, 2000
__________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and LEVY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 15
through 21. In an Amendment After Final (paper number 17),
claim 18 was amended.
Appeal No. 1998-0927
Application No. 08/343,939

2
The disclosed invention relates to a digital servo
control method for controlling a voice coil motor for moving a
head to a target track on a disk recording media. When one of
a search mode, a transition mode or a track following mode is
selected, one of a search mode interrupt service routine, a
transition mode interrupt service routine or a track following
mode interrupt service routine, respectively, is enabled as a
result of a moving distance from a track position to the
target track.
Claim 15 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it
reads as follows:
15. A digital servo control method for controlling a
voice coil motor for moving a head to a target track for every
predetermined sampling period in a data storage system using
disk recording media, said method comprising the steps of:
reading track position information for detecting a gray
code of a current track on said disk recording media to derive
a track position of said head;
selecting a target track for determining a moving
distance for moving said head from said track position to said
target track;
selecting one of a search mode, a transition mode and a
track following mode as a result of said moving distance; and
enabling one of a search mode interrupt service routine,
a transition mode interrupt service routine and a track
following mode interrupt service routine for applying a
control signal to said voice coil motor according to the
Appeal No. 1998-0927
Application No. 08/343,939

3
selected one of said search mode, transition mode and track
following mode for controlling the velocity of said head for
traversing said moving distance.
The reference relied on by the examiner is:
Funches et al. (Funches) 5,305,160 Apr.
19, 1994
Claims 15 through 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of
Funches.
Reference is made to the final rejection, the briefs and
the answer for the respective positions of the appellant and
the examiner.
OPINION
The obviousness rejection of claims 15 through 21 is
sustained as to claim 15, but is reversed as to claims 16
through 21.
According to the examiner (Answer, pages 4 and 5),
appellant’s admitted prior art (AAPA) discloses all of the
steps of claim 15 except for the enabling of an interrupt
service routine (ISR). With respect to the interrupt service
routine, the examiner indicates (Final rejection, pages 5 and
6) that:
Appeal No. 1998-0927
Application No. 08/343,939

4
The Funches et al. reference reveals an ISR for
applying a control signal to a voice coil motor
(VCM), thereby controlling head velocity. Funches
et al. furnish normal and low velocity seek mode
ISRs, equivalent to the claimed search and
transition mode ISRs, depending on whether the
difference between the current head location and the
destination track is greater than four tracks. . . .
Funches et al. also provide a FINE CONTROL mode ISR,
corresponding to the claimed track following mode
ISR. On lines 62-64 of column 18, Funches et al.
declares that the “FINE CONTROL mode is also
referred to as the Track Following mode, and is used
to maintain the heads centered on the desired
track”. Thus, the Funches et al. patent provides
all three claimed ISR modes.
At the time of the invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have
applied the teachings of Funches et al. to AAPA.
The motivation would have been to more accurately
control the VCM, as suggested by Funches et al.
Appellant argues (Brief, pages 9 and 10) that:
Funches et al. provides a teaching of a single
interrupt service routine as shown in Figs. 12A-12C
and described starting at col. 14, line 37. In col.
14, Funches et al. indicates that the main interrupt
service routine is performed “every 42 microseconds”
as a result of an interrupt being sent to servo
microprocessor 96 on a “constant recurring basis”,
i.e., “once for each servo frame”. Accordingly,
Funches is contrary to claim 15, wherein the
invention calls for the enablement of one of a
search mode interrupt service routine, a transition
mode interrupt service routine and a track following
mode interrupt service routine according to the
selected one of said search mode, transition mode
and track following mode the selected one of a
search mode, transition mode and track following
Appeal No. 1998-0927
Application No. 08/343,939

5
mode being based on the moving distance from a
current track position to a target track.
Funches states that the servo microprocessor 96 (Figures
4 and 6) services interrupts every 42 microseconds with the
interrupt service routine (ISR) (column 14, lines 54 and 55,
and column 17, lines 23 through 32). During the ISR, the mode
that is selected to move the head to a desired track on the
disk recording media depends upon the distance from the
current position of the head to the desired track (column 17,
line 68 through column 18, line 8). Although the main ISR
services both the search and the transition modes of the seek
mode in Funches, nothing in the claims on appeal precludes the
use of the same ISR to service both of the modes. When the
ISR services the search mode it becomes a search mode
interrupt service routine, and when it services the transition
mode, it becomes a transition mode interrupt service routine.
The same holds true for the FINE CONTROL or track following
mode “during subsequent interrupt services” (column 18, lines
58 through 64). Even if the ISR is not applied to the three
different modes, we note that claim 15 only requires that the
ISR be applied to a selected “one” of the three different
modes, and that only “one” of the three different interrupt
Appeal No. 1998-0927
Application No. 08/343,939

6
service routines has to be enabled. In summary, the
obviousness rejection of claim 15 is sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claims 16 through 21 is
reversed because the examiner has not demonstrated how Funches
performs all of the specific steps of these claims (Brief,
pages 12 through 14).
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 15 through
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as to claim 15, and is
reversed as to claims 16 through 21. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner 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
Kenneth W. Hairston )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Jerry Smith ) BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
Appeal No. 1998-0927
Application No. 08/343,939

7
)
)
Stuart S. Levy )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH: tdl
Appeal No. 1998-0927
Application No. 08/343,939

8
Robert E. Bushnell,
Attorney-at-Law
1522 K Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005-1202