Ex parte NAM

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 23, 2001

08599875 (B.P.A.I. May. 23, 2001)

Application for patent filed February 12, 1996,1
entitled "Disk Drive Recording Apparatus Having Actuator Arm
With Dual Heads And Head Switching Control Method," which
claims the foreign filing priority benefit under 35 U.S.C.
§ 119 of Republic of Korea Application 11444, filed
May 10, 1995.
- 1 -
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and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 26
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte HYE-JEONG NAM

Appeal No. 1999-0043
Application 08/599,8751

HEARD: May 10, 2001

Before KRASS, BARRETT, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 1999-0043
Application 08/599,875
- 2 -
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the final rejection of claims 1-13.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The invention relates to a disk drive recording apparatus
and method for improving the seek time by utilizing two
magnetic heads on a single side of the disk. The disk
recording medium is divided into three equally spaced
intervals and the heads are spaced apart by a distance equal
to one of the intervals as shown in figure 3. In the center
interval, between N/3 and 2N/3, either head can read/write
data. According to the invention, in the center interval the
head closest the target track is selected to read/write data.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A disk drive recording apparatus, comprising:
an actuator arm;
first and second heads extending from said actuator
arm for writing and reading data to and from a first
surface of a disk recording medium, said first and second
heads being spaced apart from each other in a
circumferential direction along a single radius of said
first surface of said disk recording medium;
Appeal No. 1999-0043
Application 08/599,875
- 3 -
switching means for switching a data input/output
path between said first head and said second head in
response to a control signal; and
control means for identifying a target position on
said first surface of said disk recording medium,
determining which one of said first and second heads is
closer to said target position, generating said control
signal to switch said data input/output path to said
first head when said first head is closer to said target
position and generating said control signal to switch
said data input/output path to said second head when said
second head is closer to said target position.
Appeal No. 1999-0043
Application 08/599,875
- 4 -
THE PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Daniels et al. (Daniels) 2,680,239 June 1,
1954
Mizunoe et al. (Mizunoe) 4,998,238 March 5,
1991
Gilovich 5,343,347 August 30,
1994
Kitahara 5,519,676 May 21,
1996
(effective filing date October 11,
1994)
Daniels discloses an apparatus for rapidly selecting a
desired area or point among a group of such areas or points
positioned in a track. The disk embodiment has a clock pulse
track 13 read by a transducer 16, positional data track 14
read by transducer 17, and intelligence track(s) 15 having 10
transducers 18, 18', 18", etc., which "may be interprted [sic]
as indicating either one or more heads, depending on the
number of tracks involved" (col. 3, lines 69-71). When it is
desired to locate certain areas, positional data is read from
track 14 and the difference in position is determined. "With
the difference thus determined, the transducing unit in
closest anticipatory proximity to the area to be selected is
enabled for transducing while the other transducing units
remain unenabled." Col. 1, lines 40-44. Thus, Daniels
Appeal No. 1999-0043
Application 08/599,875
- 5 -
teaches the general concept of switching to a head which is
closer to the target position, albeit in connection with fixed
heads that are positioned at the same radial distance from the
center of the disk.
Gilovich, which is disclosed as prior art by Appellant
(specification, p. 2), discloses in figure 5 a disk drive
recording apparatus having a bifurcated actuator arm
supporting a pair of spaced transducing heads. Both heads
track over a single continuous path P between the outer track
T1 and the inner track T2, and each head covers one-half the
path thereby reducing the data access time because the maximum
rotational movement of the actuator arms is reduced by
one-half (col. 9, lines 29-47).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Daniels and Gilovich. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious "to modify
the teachings of Daniels et al[.] to include the teachings of
Gilovich, motivation being to reduce the size of the package
as set forth in col. 3, lines 50-54 of Gilovich" (Examiner's
Answer, p. 4), that is, "the fixed heads of Daniels et al[.]
Appeal No. 1999-0043
Application 08/599,875
The Examiner rejects claim 3 under § 103(a) "as being2
unpatentable over Daniels et al[.] in view of Gilovich as
applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mizunoe et
al[.] and Kitahara" (final rejection, p. 4; examiner's answer,
p. 6). However, claim 3 does not depend on claim 2 and, thus,
the reference to the rejection of claim 2 is inappropriate.
Further, claim 2 is rejected over Daniels, Gilovich, and
Mizunoe, not Daniels and Gilovich as stated.
- 6 -
are substituted with the movable heads of Gilovich"
(Examiner's Answer, p. 6). The Examiner finds, as to the
three regions recited in claims 4 and 8, that Daniels teaches
switching in three regions and finds that "[i]t is inherent
when the references are combined to space the regions in a
circumferential direction along a single radius because the
heads of Gilovich are spaced this way" (Examiner's Answer, p.
4).
Claims 2, 5-7, and 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Daniels and Gilovich, as
applied to claims 1, 4, and 8, further in view of Mizunoe.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Daniels and Gilovich, further in view of
Mizunoe and Kitahara.2
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 10) and the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 16) for a statement of the
Appeal No. 1999-0043
Application 08/599,875
- 7 -
Examiner's position, and to the appeal brief (Paper No. 15)
(pages referred to as "Br__") and the reply brief (Paper
No. 17) (pages referred to as "RBr__") for a statement of
Appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to
substitute the multiple movable heads of Gilovich disposed on
an actuator assembly and movable in a direction transverse to
the circumference of the recording medium disk for the fixed
heads of Daniels in which the heads are disposed around a
single track of fixed radius (Br7-8). It is argued that it
would actually increase the package size to replace the fixed
heads of Daniels with the movable heads and actuator assembly
of Gilovich (Br7; RBr2). It is argued that the resultant
combination does not teach or suggest the feature of claim 1
that the control means switches to that head which is closer
to the target position (Br9). It is argued that Daniels does
not suggest switching between two heads in three regions as
recited in claims 4 and 8 (RBr3) and that it would not be
inherent to space the regions in a circumferential direction
as stated by the Examiner (RBr3-4).
Appeal No. 1999-0043
Application 08/599,875
- 8 -
We do not see how Daniels and Gilovich are proposed to be
combined to produce the claimed invention. Daniels shows
multiple heads 18, 18', 18", etc. spaced equally around a
single data track. Daniels indicates that each head may be
more than one head, depending on the number of tracks
involved; thus, at each angular head location, there would be
a number of heads located along the radius, one for each
track. It is logical that the fixed heads lying along a
radius, one per track, could be replaced by a single head
affixed to an actuator that would read all tracks or an
actuator with two heads each reading half the tracks, as
taught by Gilovich (although this does not seem to be the
Examiner's rationale). This would still require 10 actuators,
one for each angular location. Daniels teaches the general
concept of switching to a head which is closer to the target
position along a circumferential direction. If the fixed
heads in Daniels were replaced with the movable heads of
Gilovich, this would still result in selecting one of 10
movable heads circumferentially spaced around the disk as the
closest head. Daniels does not teach or suggest modifying the
read/write control of Gilovich so as to switch the data
Appeal No. 1999-0043
Application 08/599,875
- 9 -
input/output path to the head closer to the target position in
a radial direction. Since each head in Gilovich reads
one-half the tracks, the control only switches to the head
that can service that track. The only way it is meaningful to
say there is switching to a head that is closer to a target
position is if there are some positions which can be read by
either head, which is not the case in Gilovich. The Examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The rejection of claims 1, 4, and 8 is reversed.
The references to Mizunoe and Kitahara do not cure the
deficiencies of Daniels and Gilovich with respect to the
rejection of parent claims 1, 4, and 8. Moreover, we find
that Mizunoe does not disclose three regions or spacing the
heads by a distance corresponding to one of the three regions
as recited in the dependent claims and that such spacing would
not be inherent as stated by the Examiner. We further find
that Kitahara does not disclose dividing the recording medium
into three equally spaced intervals in a circumferential
direction along a single radius. For these reasons, the
rejections of claims 2, 3, 5-7, and 9-13 are reversed.
Appeal No. 1999-0043
Application 08/599,875
- 10 -
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1-13 are reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-0043
Application 08/599,875
- 11 -
Robert E. Bushnell
1522 K Street, N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005-1202