Ex Parte Rausch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2018

14716148 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/716,148 05/19/2015 Tim Rausch STB.174.A1 1024
98068 7590
Hollingsworth Davis
8000 West 78th Street
Suite 450
Minneapolis, MN 55439
EXAMINER
WONG, KIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/12/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
tdotter @ hdpatlaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIM RAUSCH, TATSUYA SHIMIZU,
WAI YEUN LAI, and KAI CHIU CHEUNG1
Appeal 2017-006120
Application 14/716,148
Technology Center 2600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, HUNG H. BUI, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20. App. Br. 5—10.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants list Seagate Technology LLC as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief 1, filed August 18, 2016 (“App. Br.”).
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellants’ arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above-mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents, for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
April 29, 2016 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 17,
2017 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed March 1, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2017-006120
Application 14/716,148
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
A heater power of a heat-assisted magnetic recording head
is set to an initial power to induce an initial head-medium
clearance. For a plurality of iterations, a heater power at an
optimum laser power is determined that achieve a target
clearance. If differences in the heater power and optimum laser
power between the two subsequent iterations are below a
threshold, the iterations are stopped and the heater power and the
optimum laser power for one of the two subsequent iterations is
used as an operational heater power and laser power for the heat-
assisted magnetic recording head.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed
invention:
1. A method comprising:
setting a heater power of a heat-assisted magnetic
recording head to an initial power to induce an initial head-
medium clearance;
for a plurality of iterations:
varying a laser power of the recording head while
writing data to at least one track of a recording medium at
the initial head-medium clearance;
determining an optimum laser power based on
reading the data;
applying an additional heater power to approach or
cause a head-medium contact at the optimum laser power;
and
setting the heater power for a next iteration based on
an offset from the additional heater power;
wherein, if a first difference in the heater power between
two subsequent iterations is below a first threshold and a second
difference in the optimum laser power between the two
subsequent iterations is below a second threshold, stopping the
2
Appeal 2017-006120
Application 14/716,148
iterations and using the heater power and the optimum laser
power for one of the two subsequent iterations as an operational
heater power and an operational laser power for the heat-assisted
magnetic recording head.
Claims 1, 2, 7—12, and 17—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Ruan (US 8,922,929 Bl; issued Dec. 30, 2014).
Final Act. 2-4.
Claims 3—6 and 13—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ruan and Erden (US 8,477,569 B2; issued July 2, 2013).
Final Act. 5.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Ruan’s embodiments outlined in Figures 4
and 5 disclose all of the limitations of independent claim 1, including the
claimed step of varying a laser power of the recording head while writing
data (Final Act. 2 (citing Ruan, col. 3,11. 62—65); see Ruan FIG. 4), as well
as the claimed step of applying additional heater power to cause the head to
approach or contact the medium (Final Act. 3 (citing Ruan, col. 4,11. 26—35);
see Ruan FIG. 5). The Examiner also finds that Ruan teaches performing
these steps iteratively until differences in heater and laser power are below
respective thresholds. Final Act. (citing Ruan, col. 2,1. 35—col. 3,1. 30,
col. 4,11. 47—58); Ans. 2—3 (citing Ruan, col. 5,11. 19—37).
3
Appeal 2017-006120
Application 14/716,148
Appellants argue, inter alia, that Ruan
fails to show iterations that involve all of the steps set forth in the
independent claims. . . Ruan fails to show an exit criteria that
involves comparing either heater power or laser power between
subsequent iterations. Further, Ruan describes two different
procedures, one in which optimum laser power is found and
another in which touchdown heater power is found for different
drives. These procedures [are] performed differently from what
is set forth in the claims.
App. Br. 5.
ANALYSIS
/.
We agree with Appellants (App. Br. 8) that the anticipation rejection
is based on the Examiner improperly piecing together Ruan’s “two different
procedures . . . without showing how those portions work together to arrive
at the claimed limitations:”
Ruan teaches that the procedures shown in FIGS. 4 and 5 are
performed separately from one another. One procedure as in
FIG. 5 is used to obtain a curve fit of [fly height actuator (FHA)]
write setting, and this curve is used at block 44 of FIG. 4 to adjust
the fly height setting based on the adjusted laser power. Ruan
does not expressly or inherently describe this step as involving
application of additional heater power to approach or cause a
head-medium contact at the adjusted laser power.
App. Br. 7.
We disagree with the Examiner that Ruan teaches integrating the two
procedures in the manner currently being claimed. Ans. 2—3 (citing Ruan,
col. 5,11. 19-37). The passage of Ruan cited by the Examiner merely
contains general patent-document-boilerplate assertions that the described
processes can be combined in various ways. Ruan, col. 5,11. 19-21. Merely
4
Appeal 2017-006120
Application 14/716,148
stating that “[t]he [described] example task or events may be performed in
serial, in parallel, or in some other manner” {id., col. 5,11. 30-32) does not
constitute a sufficiently specific disclosure of all of the recited claim
limitations.
II.
For completeness, we now address whether Ruan’s embodiment
associated with Figure 4, by itself, discloses all of the limitations of
independent claim 1. We find that it does not.
To be sure, Ruan discloses that the fly height actuator may be
constituted of “a heater that actuates through thermal expansion.” Ruan,
col. 2,11. 42 43. Ruan discloses that this fly height actuator or heater may
be set to an initial power and then have that heater power iteratively
adjusted. Ruan, FIG. 4, steps 34, 44. Ruan’s flowchart of Figure 4 also
depicts this iterative adjustment process as entailing adjusting laser power,
as well as heater power. Ruan, FIG. 4, step 42.
Regardless, we agree with Appellants that “[i]n [the disclosure
associated with] FIG. 4, Ruan compares a quality metric to a threshold, and
does not teach comparing laser powers between subsequent iterations.”
App. Br. 6 (citing Ruan, FIG. 4, step 40). Ruan’s disclosure supports
Appellants’ argument that the exit condition is based upon a quality metric,
such as an off-track read capability, exceeding a threshold—not upon
changes in laser and heater power being below respective thresholds:
Data is then written to the disk (block 36) and a quality metric of
the write operation is generated (block 38) such as by measuring
an off-track read capability. If the quality metric indicates a poor
write quality 65 (e.g., if the quality metric is less than a threshold
at block 40), then the laser power is adjusted, for example,
increased (block 42), and the FHA write setting is adjusted based
5
Appeal 2017-006120
Application 14/716,148
on the adjusted laser power (block 44). The flow diagram is then
repeated from block 36 until the quality metric indicates a good
write quality (e.g., if the quality metric is greater than the
threshold at block 40). In this manner, the laser power is
calibrated by evaluating the write quality at different laser power
settings while maintaining a substantially constant fly height by
making an appropriate adjustment to the FHA write setting as the
laser power is adjusted.
Ruan, col. 3,1. 65—col. 4,1. 9 (emphasis added).
Furthermore, the Examiner has not asserted, much less provided
sufficient technical reasoning, that a quality metric being above a threshold
inherently results from, or necessarily is associated with, differences in laser
and heater power being below respective thresholds.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of that claim, of independent
claim 11, which recites similar limitations, or of claims 2, 7—10, 12, and 17—
20, which respectively depend from claims 1 and 11.
With respect to the remaining rejection of dependent claims 3—6 and
13—16, the Examiner does not rely on Erden to cure the deficiency of the
anticipation rejection explained above. We therefore do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of these claims for the reasons set forth above in
relation to claim 1.
6
Appeal 2017-006120
Application 14/716,148
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
7