Ex Parte Oberg

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 24, 2009

10819333 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 24, 2009)

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 In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner has withdrawn the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.”) (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.”)
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