Ex parte MAKI et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 18, 1998

08125311 (B.P.A.I. May. 18, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 21, 1993.1
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte SHINICHI MAKI, TATSUYA MASUDA,
KAZUNOBU TOMIYAMA AND YOSHIHISA MATSUMOTO
_____________
Appeal No. 95-3124
Application 08/125,3111
______________
HEARD: MAY 5, 1998
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, TORCZON and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 95-3124
Application No. 08/125,311
2
Appeal No. 95-3124
Application No. 08/125,311
3
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1,
3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11 through 15 and 17. In an Amendment After
Final (paper number 9-1/2), claim 6 was canceled.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11 through 15 and 17 remain
before us on appeal.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus
for producing a reduced write current to a data head that is
collaterally positioned with a servo head between two disks.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A method for writing data, for a magnetic disk
apparatus that includes a plurality of magnetic disks that are
stacked at predetermined intervals; a servo head for reading
servo signals recorded on a servo surface of one of said
magnetic disks; a plurality of data heads, one of which is
provided for each data surface of said magnetic disks, with a
first data head being collaterally positioned with said servo
head with no intervening magnetic disk therebetween, and said
second data heads being positioned at other than said
collateral position; and an actuator for supporting said servo
head and said data heads and for positioning said servo head
and said data heads by moving them radially relative to said
magnetic disks, comprising the steps of:
producing a write current whose value is varied by
selecting either said first data head or one of said second
data heads in consonance with a head select signal and wherein
the write current produced when said first data head is
selected is less than a value of a write current that is
Appeal No. 95-3124
Application No. 08/125,311
4
produced when one of said second data heads is selected; and
Appeal No. 95-3124
Application No. 08/125,311
Weispfenning (U.S. Patent No. 5,210,669) is listed in2
the prior art of record, but it is not included in the
statement of the rejection. Since this reference was not
included in the statement of the rejection, we will not
consider appellants’ discussion of this reference in the
response to arguments section of the answer. See In re Hoch,
428 F.2d 1341, 1342, 166 USPQ 406, 407 (CCPA 1970).
5
driving, at said write current value, said data head that
is selected by said head select signal in consonance with
write data.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Sidman 5,099,367 Mar. 24,
1992
Weispfenning et al. (Weispfenning) 5,136,439 Aug.
4, 1992
Weispfenning et al. (Weispfenning) 5,210,669 May
11, 1993
Nguyen et al. (Nguyen) 5,260,703 Nov. 9,
1993
(filed Aug. 27, 1992)
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11 through 15 and 17 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sidman in
view of Weispfenning ‘439 and Nguyen.2
Reference is made to the brief, the answer and the final
rejection (paper number 8) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
Appeal No. 95-3124
Application No. 08/125,311
6
and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3,
4, 7, 9, 11 through 15 and 17.
Appeal No. 95-3124
Application No. 08/125,311
Appellants’ acknowledged prior art (Figure 1B) discloses3
a data head and a servo head collaterally paired and supported
by the same actuator arm between two disks. With such closely
spaced heads, electromagnetic noise leakage from the data head
to the servo head will occur during data writing by the data
head. Appellants have likewise acknowledged this problem
7
Figure 1B of Sidman discloses a servo head 27 and a data
head 26 with a disk 16 located therebetween. Although Sidman
discloses “a head selection and amplifying unit 32 for
supplying a head selection signal to the drive control unit
10,” and “a circuit 34 for providing an automatic gain control
signal for the unit 32,” he “fails to specifically disclose
the claimed first data head which is collaterally paired with
the servo heads, the step of supplying a variable write
current to one of the data write head and thus drives the head
at the aforementioned current value” (paper number 8, page 3).
The examiner relies on Nguyen to show that “the use of a
VGA amplifier is notoriously well known” (paper number 8, page
4).
Weispfenning ‘439 discloses (Figure 1) a data transducer
18 and a servo transducer 14 supported on the same actuator
arm between two disks. According to the examiner, “the
primary source of undesired electromagnetic radiation to the3
Appeal No. 95-3124
Application No. 08/125,311
(specification, page 4).
8
servo transducer of servo head 14 is the data head 18 (the
first data head) which shares the same actuator arm assembly
with the servo head 14" (paper number 8, page 6). The
examiner concludes (paper number 8, page 7) that:
Since the amplitude of the noise induced for a given
write current is inversely proportional to the
distance between the servo and the data head, the
write current of a typical first data head is
preferred to be smaller than that of the second data
head. Hence, in order to obtain an uniform and
optimum error rate, it would be obvious that the
write current varies in the system as taught by
Sidman/Weispfenning et al./Nguyen et al.”
Appellants argue (Brief, page 28) that “[t]he stark fact
is that not a single one of the references applied by the
Examiner even mentions electromagnetic interference between
collaterally spaced data [and] servo heads or relative values
of write currents between such heads.” We agree. The
examiner has reached a conclusion that “the write current of a
typical first data head is preferred to be smaller than that
of the second data head” without the benefit of any evidence
in the record, except for appellants’ disclosed and claimed
invention. Inasmuch as a prima facie case of obviousness can
Appeal No. 95-3124
Application No. 08/125,311
9
not be made using appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention
as a guide, the obviousness rejection is reversed.
Appeal No. 95-3124
Application No. 08/125,311
10
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 7,
9, 11 through 15 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
RICHARD TORCZON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 95-3124
Application No. 08/125,311
11
Patrick G. Burns
GREER, BURNS, & CRAIN, LTD.
Sears Tower, Suite 8660
233 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60606