Ex Parte ObergDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesApr 24, 200910819333 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 24, 2009) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte MATS OBERG ____________________ Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,3331 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Decided:2 April 24, 2009 ____________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The real party in interest is Marvell International Ltd. 2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery). Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1-83. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 5-9, 14, 20-25, 35-39, 44, 50-55, 62-64, 69 and 72-75. At issue in this appeal, therefore, is the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 10-13, 15-19, 26-34, 40-43, 45-49, 56-61, 65-68, 70-71, and 76-83. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. The Appellant’s invention relates to an apparatus for detecting thermal asperity (TA) events in a read channel of a magnetic storage (i.e. recording) system. More particularly, the present invention relates to reducing a DC offset (i.e. baseline wander) in a read signal to improve accuracy of (TA) detection. Specifically, a summing module receives a read signal in a first input (para. [0049]). A DC correction module selectively generates a DC correction signal to reduce the DC offset in the read signal (para. [0051]). The output of the DC correction module serves as the second input of the summing module. A detecting module compares the output of the summing module to a TA threshold and selectively detects TA events based on the comparison (para. [0051]). In another embodiment, the detecting module adjusts either the read signal or the TA threshold based upon the comparison (para. [0056]). Claims 1 and 15 are exemplary: 1. A perpendicular recording system, comprising: a summing module that has a first input that receives a read signal; 2 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 a DC correction module that selectively generates a DC correction signal to reduce DC offset in said read signal, wherein said DC correction signal is output to a second input of said summing module; and a detecting module that compares an output of said summing module to a threshold and that selectively detects Thermal Asperity (TA) events based on said comparison. 15. A perpendicular recording system, comprising: a DC correction module that selectively generates a DC correction signal to reduce DC offset in a read signal; and a detecting module that has a threshold, that receives said read signal and said DC correction signal, that adjusts at least one of said read signal and said threshold based on said DC correction signal. The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Cram US 5,841,318 Nov. 24, 1998 Kasai US 6,104,557 Aug. 15, 2000 Gopalaswamy US 6,219,192 B1 Apr. 17, 2001 Gowda US 6,414,806 B1 Jul. 2, 2002 Egan US 6,452,735 B1 Sep. 17, 2002 Claims 1, 3, 10, 15-16, 18, 26-27, 31, 33, 403, 45-46, 48, 56-57, 61, 654, 70-71, and 76-77 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Gopalaswamy. 3 The Examiner’s § 102 rejection lists claims 35-40 as being anticipated by Gopalaswamy (Ans. 3). Since the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 35-39, however (Ans. 2), we will consider claims 35-39 to be no longer rejected under § 102. 4 The Examiner’s statement of rejection omits claim 65. However, the body of the rejection discusses claim 65 (Ans. 4). Therefore, we include claim 65 in this group of rejected claims. 3 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 Claims 2, 4, 17, 19, 32, 34, 47, and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gopalaswamy in view of Cram. Claims 11, 30, 41, 60, 66, and 80 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gopalaswamy in view of Gowda. Claims 12, 28-29, 42, 58-59, 67, 78-79, and 81-835 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gopalaswamy in view of Kasai. Claims 13, 43, and 68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gopalaswamy in view of Egan. Rather than repeat the arguments of the Appellant or the Examiner, we make reference to the supplemental Appeal Brief (filed October 23, 2006) and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed January 29, 2007) for their respective details. ISSUES Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Gopalaswamy discloses a system comprising a summing module having an input that receives a read signal (Ans. 4). Further, the system includes a DC correction module and a detecting module (Ans. 4). The Appellant argues that Gopalaswamy does not teach a DC correction module that selectively generates a DC correction signal to reduce DC offset in a read signal (App. Br. 8-11). 5 The Examiner’s statement of rejection omits claims 81-83. However, the body of the rejection discusses claims 81-83 (Ans. 6). Therefore, we include claims 81-83 in this group of rejected claim. 4 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 Regarding representative claim 15, the Examiner finds that since the compensator 113, summer 130 and bit-rate sampler 120 are in a closed feedback loop, compensator 113 receives the read signal 114 and the correction signal 115 (Ans. 9-10). Appellant argues that Gopalaswamy fails to teach a detecting module that receives the read signal and the DC correction signal (App. Br. 15). The contentions of Appellant present us with the following two issues: 1. Did Appellant show that the Examiner erred in finding that Gopalaswamy teaches a DC correction module (for baseline wander) that selectively generates a DC correction signal to reduce DC offset in the read signal, wherein the output of the DC correction signal is coupled to the second input of the summing module? 2. Did Appellant show that the Examiner erred in finding that Gopalaswamy teaches a detecting module that has a threshold, that receives the read signal and the DC correction signal and that adjusts either the read signal or the TA threshold based on the DC correction signal? FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. The Invention 1. According to Appellant, the invention concerns a perpendicular recording system comprising a summing module having a first input that receives a read signal (para. [0052]). 2. A DC correction module (for baseline wander) selectively generates a DC correction signal to reduce DC offset in the read signal, 5 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 wherein the output of the DC correction signal is coupled to the second input of the summing module (paras. [0050, 0052]). 3. The detecting module compares an output of the summing module to a Thermal Asperity (TA) threshold and selectively detects TA events based on the comparison (para. [0052]). 4. Alternatively, the detecting module adjusts the TA threshold based on the DC correction signal (paras. [0056, 0060]). Gopalaswamy 5. Gopalaswamy teaches a method and apparatus to compensate for an additive signal in a data signal relating to a data storage device with a magneto-resistive head due to thermal contact with asperities on the data storage medium (col. 1, ll. 5-8). 6. Gopalaswamy teaches a summer 130 coupled to receive a data signal (col. 4, l. 67 – col. 5, l. 2). 7. Compensator 113 couples the summer 130 to receive the sampled data signal 119 and produces a compensation signal 115 to be received by summer 130 for subtracting a DC offset when TA events are detected by compensator 113 in a TA affected data signal, wherein a TA- affected signal is the additive combination of the data signal and a TA signal (col. 4, l. 67 – col. 5, l. 7; col. 5, ll. 14-17) 8. Compensator 113 receives the sampled compensated signal 119, which is a sampled version of the compensated data signal 118. Compensator 113 receives a sampled version of the read signal 114 when the compensation signal 115 is zero. Compensator 113 does not receive the DC correction signal 115 (col. 5, ll. 14-21 and 33-54; col. 6, ll. 1-2). 6 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 9. In a “normal mode,†Gopalaswamy teaches that the compensation signal 115 is zero when TA events are not present (col. 5, ll. 33-36). 10. Gopalaswamy teaches that in this “normal mode,†if compensator 113 detects the presence of a TA signal or an additive signal (above a predetermined threshold for a TA event) in the TA affected signal 114, a “thermal asperity mode†is initiated (col. 5, ll. 36-39; col. 3, ll. 44- 45). 11. In a “thermal asperity mode,†Gopalaswamy teaches that compensator 113 estimates the amplitude of the TA or additive signal component in the TA-affected signal and generates an initial DC voltage level offset as a compensation signal 115 (col.5, ll. 39-42). 12. Further, in the “thermal asperity mode,†compensator 113 reduces the compensation signal 115 to a zero value in a step-wise fashion as the TA signal and TA-affected signal 114 reduce (col. 5, ll. 43-46). Cram 13. Cram teaches an amplifier that amplifies the data signal before input to the filter (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 3, ll. 8-10). Gowda 14. Gowda teaches a rectifying means to rectify the data signal before output to the TA threshold comparator (col. 7, ll. 27-48). Kasai 15. Kasai teaches a TA detecting module having a high pass filter that has output that communicates with the low pass filter (col. 14, ll. 33-62). 7 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 Egan 16. Egan teaches a TA detecting module comprising a band pass filter (col. 7, ll. 11-28). PRINCIPLES OF LAW Anticipation pursuant to 35 U.S.C § 102 is established when a single prior art reference discloses expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. We determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim must then be compared with the prior art. In an appeal from a rejection for anticipation, the Appellant must explain which limitations are not found in the reference. See Gechter v. Davidson, 116 F.3d 1454, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[W]e expect that the Board's anticipation analysis be conducted on a limitation by limitation basis, with specific fact findings for each contested limitation and satisfactory explanations for such findings.")(emphasis added). See also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient 8 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.â€) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’ KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007). The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art, and (4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1734 (“While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that controls.â€) In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,†id. at 1739, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. In particular, the Supreme Court emphasized that “the principles laid down in Graham reaffirmed the ‘functional approach’ of Hotchkiss, 11 How. 248.†KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739 (citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12), and reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.†Id. The Court explained: 9 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Id. at 1740. The operative question in this “functional approach†is thus “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.†Id. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3, and 10 We select claim 1 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellant’s arguments directed to claim 1 present us with the first issue discussed above. Appellant focuses upon the fact that reducing the DC offset as a result of DC distortion is not the same as reducing the DC offset that corresponds to a TA event (App. Br. 9). Claim 1 recites “a DC correction module that selectively generates a DC correction signal to reduce DC offset in said read signal.†Thus, the scope of claim 1 includes that there is a signal that reduces DC offset in the read signal. However, we do not find any limitation in claim 1, nor has Appellant identified any limitation in claim 1 that requires that the only purpose of the signal is to reduce DC offset. 10 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 We agree with the Examiner’s finding that although the sole purpose of the DC correction signal of Gopalaswamy is not to reduce DC offset in a read signal, the DC correction signal does in fact reduce DC offset when compensator 113 detects any read signal that crosses the predetermined threshold for thermal asperity (Ans. 8). Specifically, in Gopalaswamy’s “normal mode,†if compensator 113 detects the presence of a TA signal or an additive signal (above a predetermined threshold) in the TA-affected signal 114, the system initiates a “thermal asperity mode†(FF 10). In the “thermal asperity mode,†compensator 113 estimates the amplitude of the additive signal component and generates an initial DC voltage level offset as a compensation signal 115 (FF 11). Similarly, when a DC offset exists, compensator 113 will detect the DC distortion as an additive signal which combined with the read signal crosses the predetermined threshold (FF 10). Accordingly, compensator 113 will generate a DC correction signal that reduces DC offset in a read signal. Further, Appellant argues that compensator 113 only generates a compensation signal 115 while the system is in thermal asperity mode (App. Br. 11). We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive of Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that compensator 113 of the perpendicular recording system serves to reduce the DC offset whether it is initiated from a baseline wander or a TA event (Ans. 8). Specifically, if the compensated data signal exceeds a predetermined threshold while in the “normal mode,†the system is placed in the “thermal asperity mode†(FF 10). While in thermal asperity mode, compensator 113 reduces the compensation signal 115 to a zero value in a step-wise fashion as the data signal affected 11 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 by either TA events or DC distortion reduces (FF 12). Thus, we find that the perpendicular recording system of Gopalaswamy serves to detect a DC offset while in normal mode. We do not find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102, nor that of dependent claims 3 and 10 not separately argued with particularity. Claim 15, 16, 18, 26, and 27 Appellant’s arguments directed to this group of claims present us with the second issue. Claim 15 is an independent claim which recites “a detecting module that has a threshold, that receives said read signal and said DC correction signal.†Thus, the scope of claim 15 includes that the detecting module which receives both a read signal and a DC correction signal. Claims 16, 18, 26, and 27 depend on claim 15 and therefore include the same limitation. The Examiner finds that the closed feedback loop including compensator 113, summer 130 and bit-rate sampler 120 provide both the read signal 114 and the DC correction signal 115 as inputs to the compensator 113 (Ans. 9-10). The Examiner finds that the result of summing module 130 or compensated signal 118 after being sampled by bit- rate sampler 120 and fed to compensator 113 represents the read signal 114 and the DC correction signal 115 (Ans. 9-10). Appellant argues that Gopalaswamy fails to teach a detecting module that receives both the read signal and the DC correction signal (App. Br. 16). Compensator 113 receives the sampled compensated signal 119, which is a sampled version of the compensated data signal 118. Since there are intervening components that necessarily modify the read signal 114 and the 12 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 DC correction signal 115, we agree with Appellant’s position that compensator 113 does not receive the read signal 114 nor does it receive the DC correction signal 115 (FF 8). Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has not shown that Gopalaswamy teaches all of the limitations of claims 15, 16, 18, 26, and 27. Therefore, because the Appellant has established error in the Examiner’s rejection, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 16, 18, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Claims 31, 33, and 40 We select claim 31 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appellant argues that Gopalaswamy does not teach a perpendicular recording system that includes a DC correction module that selectively generates a DC correction signal to reduce DC offset in a read signal (App. Br. 19). Again, Appellant focuses upon the fact that reducing the DC offset as a result of DC distortion is not the same as reducing the DC offset that corresponds to a TA event (App. Br. 19). Thus, Appellant’s arguments directed to claims 31, 33 and 40 present us with the first issue. Independent claim 31 is similar to claim 1 in that it recites “generating a DC correction signal to reduce DC offset in said read signal.†Thus, as with claim 1, the scope of claim 31 includes that there is a signal that reduces DC offset in the read signal. However, we do not find any limitation in claim 31, nor has Appellant identified any limitation in claim 31 which requires that the only purpose of the signal is to reduce DC offset. As noted supra with respect to claim 1, Appellant’s arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s 13 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 finding that Gopalaswamy teaches the claimed signal to reduce DC offset in a read signal. Therefore, we do not find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 31, 33, and 40. Claims 45, 46, 48, 56, and 57 Appellant’s arguments directed to this group of claims present us with the second issue. Claim 45 is an independent claim which recites “detecting means having a threshold, for receiving said read signal and said DC correction signal.†Thus, the scope of claim 45 is similar to claim 15 in that it includes that the detecting module which receives both a read signal and a DC correction signal. Claims 46, 48, 56, and 57 depend on claim 45 and therefore include the same limitation. As noted supra with respect to claim 15, since there are intervening components that necessarily modify the read signal 114 and the DC correction signal 115, we agree with the Appellant’s position that compensator 113 does not receive the read signal 114 nor does it receive the DC correction signal 115 (FF 8). Therefore, because the Appellant has established error in the Examiner’s rejection, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 46, 48, 56, and 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Claims 61 and 65 We select claim 61 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Thus, Appellant’s arguments directed to claims 61 and 65 present us with the first issue. Claim 61 recites “generating a DC correction signal to 14 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 reduce offset in a read signal.†Thus, as with claim 1, the scope of claim 61 includes that there is a signal that reduces DC offset in the read signal. However, we do not find any limitation in claim 61, nor has Appellant identified any limitation in claim 61 which requires that the only purpose of the signal is to reduce DC offset. As noted supra with respect to claim 1, Appellant’s arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Gopalaswamy teaches the claimed signal to reduce DC offset in a read signal. Therefore, we do not find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 61 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 61 and 65. Claims 70, 71, 76, and 77 We select claim 70 as representative of this group of claims, pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). The Appellant argues that Gopalaswamy does not teach a perpendicular recording system that includes a DC correction module that selectively generates a DC correction signal to reduce DC offset in a read signal (App. Br. 35). Again, the Appellant focuses upon the fact that reducing the DC offset as a result of DC distortion is not the same as reducing the DC offset that corresponds to a TA event (App. Br. 35). Thus, Appellant’s arguments directed to claims 70, 71, 76, and 77 present us with the first issue. Independent claim 70 is similar to claim 1 in that it recites “generating a DC correction signal to reduce DC offset in said read signal.†Thus, as with claim 1, the scope of claim 70 includes that there is a signal that 15 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 reduces DC offset in the read signal. However, we do not find any limitation in claim 70, nor has Appellant identified any limitation in claim 70 which requires that the only purpose of the signal is to reduce DC offset. As noted supra with respect to claim 1, Appellant’s arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Gopalaswamy teaches the claimed signal to reduce DC offset in a read signal. Therefore, we do not find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 70, 71, 76, and 77. Claims 17, 19, 28, 29, and 30 As noted supra, we reversed the rejection of independent claim 15 from which claims 17, 19, 28, 29, and 30 depend. We have reviewed Cram, Kasai and Gowda (the additional references applied by the Examiner to reject these claims), and find that none of the cited references teaches the limitations deemed to be absent from Gopalaswamy. We therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 17, 19, 28, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the § 102 rejection of parent claim 15, supra. Claims 47 49, and 60 As noted supra, we reversed the rejection of independent claim 45 from which claims 47, 49, and 60 depend. We have reviewed Cram, and Kasai (the additional reference applied by the Examiner to reject these claims), and find that neither reference teaches the limitations deemed to be absent from Gopalaswamy. 16 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 We therefore reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 47, 49 and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for the same reasons expressed with respect to the § 102 rejection of parent claim 45, supra. Claims 2, 4, 32, and 34 Appellant argues that claims 2, 4, 32, and 34 are allowable for the reasons presented with regard to respective independent claims 1 and 31 (App. Br. 11 and 22). As noted supra, we affirmed the rejection of claims 1 and 31. Appellant has not presented any argument as to why these claims should be separately patentable. Because the Appellant has failed to identify any error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 32, and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4, 32, and 34, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gopalaswamy in view of Cram. Claims 11, 41, 66, and 80 The Appellant argues that claims 11, 41, 66, and 80 are allowable for the reasons presented with regard to respective independent claims 1, 31, 61, and 70 (App. Br. 11, 22, 32, and 37). As noted supra, we affirmed the rejection of claims 1, 31, 61, and 70. Appellant has not presented any argument as to why these claims should be separately patentable. Because Appellant has failed to identify any error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 41, 66, and 80 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 41, 66, and 80, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gopalaswamy in view of Gowda. 17 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 Claims 12, 42, 58-59, 67, 78-79, and 81-83 The Appellant argues that claims 12, 42, 58-59, 67, 78-79, and 81-83 are allowable for the reasons presented with regard to respective independent claims 1, 31, 61, and 70. As noted supra, we affirmed the rejection of claims 1, 31, 61, and 70. Because the Appellant has failed to identify any error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 42, 58-59, 67, 78-79, and 81-83 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and Appellant has not presented any argument as to why these claims should be separately patentable, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 42, 58-59, 67, 78-79, and 81-83, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gopalaswamy in view of Kasai. Claims 13, 43, and 68 Appellant argues that claims 13, 43, and 68 are allowable for the reasons presented with regard to respective independent claims 1, 31, 61, and 70. As noted supra, we affirmed the rejection of claims 1, 31, 61, and 70. Because the Appellant has failed to identify any error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 43, and 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and the Appellant has not presented any argument as to why these claims should be separately patentable, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 43, and 68, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Gopalaswamy in view of Egan. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Gopalaswamy teaches a DC correction module (for baseline wander) that selectively generates a DC correction signal to reduce DC offset in the read signal, wherein the output of the DC correction signal is coupled to the second input of the summing module. 18 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Gopalaswamy teaches a detecting module that compares an output of the summing module to a Thermal Asperity (TA) threshold and selectively detects TA events based on the comparison. Appellant, however, has shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Gopalaswamy teaches a detecting module that has a threshold, that receives the read signal and the DC correction signal and that adjusts either the read signal or the TA threshold based on the DC correction signal. ORDER The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 10-13, 28-34, 40-43, 47, 49, 58-61, 65-68, 70-71, and 76-83 is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 15-19, 28-30, 45-49, and 58-60 is reversed. 19 Appeal 2008-6087 Application 10/819,333 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART ELD HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE P.L.C. 5445 CORPORATE DRIVE SUITE 200 TROY, MI 48098 20 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation