Ex Parte Fukushima

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 2012

11125597 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

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. 11/125,597 05/09/2005 Craig N. Fukushima SJ09-2001-0043 US2 3283 81000 7590 09/26/2012 HITACHI C/O MURABITO HAO & BARNES LLP Two North Market Street 3rd Floor San Jose, CA 95113 EXAMINER HABERMEHL, JAMES LEE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2627 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte CRAIG N. FUKUSHIMA _____________ Appeal 2010-005213 Application 11/125,597 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before ERIC S. FRAHM, BRYAN F. MOORE, and RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005213 Application 11/125,597 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-6, 15-20, 22, 23 and 25-28. Claims 8-14 and 24 are cancelled. Br. 4. Claims 7 and 21 are allowed. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART the Examiner’s rejections of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to an improved servo burst pattern for a hard disk drive. See Spec. p. 1, ll. 6-8. Claims 1 and 22 are representative of the invention and are reproduced below: 1. A storage medium comprising: a disk surface comprising concentric tracks and a plurality of servo sectors each having recorded therein servo information that is seamless and untrimmed, said servo information for track positioning of a head; and wherein said servo information comprises: a primary burst set comprising a first servo data burst extending along a first radial line and a second servo data burst extending along an adjacent second radial line and comprising bursts that are positioned in between bursts of said first servo data burst, said primary burst set for defining positions of said concentric tracks; and at least two secondary burst sets adjacent but radially offset from said primary burst set and each radially offset from each other. 22. In a disk drive apparatus, a method of positioning a head comprising the steps of: traversing said head over a storage medium having stored thereon servo sectors which contain a primary burst set, a radially offset first secondary burst set and a radially offset Appeal 2010-005213 Application 11/125,597 3 second secondary burst set wherein said primary burst set defines a track pitch of said disk medium and wherein said first and second secondary burst sets are shifted along their respective radial lines with respect to said primary burst set; generating a first position error signal in response to said head traversing said primary burst set; generating a second position error signal in response to said head traversing said first secondary burst set; generating a third position error signal in response to said head traversing said second secondary burst set; and using linear regions of said first, second and third position error signals to adjust a track position of said head. REFERENCES VOLZ US 5,867,341 Feb. 2, 1999 EHRLICH US 6,519,107 B1 Feb. 11, 2003 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-6 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Ehrlich. Ans. 3-5. Claims 22 and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as being anticipated by Volz. Ans. 5. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ehlich and Volz. Ans. 6. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that: 1. Ehlich discloses “a first servo data burst extending along a first radial line and a second servo data burst extending along an adjacent second Appeal 2010-005213 Application 11/125,597 4 radial line and comprising bursts that are positioned in between bursts of said first servo data burst” (Independent claim 1) 1; and 2. Volz discloses “using linear regions of said first, second and third position error signals to adjust a track position of said head” (Independent claim 22)? ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. 102(e) - Ehrlich Claims 1-6 and 15-20 Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 and 15-20. Claim 1 requires “a first servo data burst extending along a first radial line and a second servo data burst extending along an adjacent second radial line and comprising bursts that are positioned in between bursts of said first servo data burst.” Independent claim 15 contains a similar limitation. Appellant assert that “Ehrlich does not anticipate ‘a primary burst set comprising a first servo data burst extending along a first radial line and a second servo data burst extending along an adjacent second radial line and comprising bursts that are positioned in between bursts of said first servo data burst.”’ App. Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellant contends “Ehrlich disclose[s] a primary burst set of bursts A, B and C where no bursts that are adjacent to either bursts A, B or C are positioned between the bursts of A, B or C. Rather Ehrlich discloses bursts A, B and C only partially radially offset from an adjacent burst.” Id. 1 Appellant makes additional arguments regarding claims 1. App. Br. 9-11. We do not reach these additional issues since this issue is dispositive of claim 1. Appeal 2010-005213 Application 11/125,597 5 The Examiner finds that bursts 22A and 22B in Ehlich correspond to the first servo burst and second servo burst. However, burst 22A and 22E are not next to each other, but rather bursts 22B, 22C, and 22D are intervening between burst 22A and burst 22E. See, Ehlich, Fig. 8. The Examiner attempts to resolve this problem by noting that: Considering that appellant also claims at least two secondary burst sets are all adjacent [to] the primary burst set, and the specification and drawings only disclose the arrangement of the primary set followed by one secondary set followed by another secondary burst set and optionally even another after that, the examiner concludes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "adjacent" is that all the servo bursts are grouped generally together in the same servo sector, and therefore in similar fashion the burst sets of Ehrlich et al., such as is shown in Figure 8 for example, are all adjacent to each other. Ans. 9-10. We disagree. Initially, we note that the Specification does not state that grouping together in a sector implies adjacency. In fact, claim 1 recites that the burst sets are adjacent to other sets and that individual bursts are adjacent to other individual bursts. Claim 1, see also Spec. p. 19, ll. 403- 416. We find that the Examiner’s interpretation of “adjacent” is too broad. For example, we note that the court’s interpretation of “adjacent” in Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int'l, Inc., 423 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2005) is instructive. The term should be assigned its ordinary meaning, and understood as broadly as reasonable in light of the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The ordinary meaning of “adjacent” describes things that are “‘relatively near and having nothing of the same kind intervening.”’ See Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the Appeal 2010-005213 Application 11/125,597 6 English Language Unabridged 26 (2002), quoted in Free Motion, 423 F.3d at 1349 n.3. (Id.) We find that the Specification consistently refers to bursts that are next to each other, without another intervening burst, as being “adjacent.” Spec. p. 3, ll. 72-74, p. 18, 391-393, p. 19, ll. 403-416, p. 20, ll. 441-442, and p. 21, ll. 462-464. Therefore, we construe adjacent to mean “relatively near and having nothing of the same kind intervening.” Given the construction above, the Examiner has not shown that Ehlich discloses “a first servo data burst extending along a first radial line and a second servo data burst extending along an adjacent second radial line and comprising bursts that are positioned in between bursts of said first servo data burst.” Thus, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-6 and 15-20. 35 U.S.C. 102(e) – Volz Claims 22 and 25-28 We discern no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 22 and 25- 28. Independent claim 22 requires “using linear regions of said first, second and third position error signals to adjust a track position of said head.” Claims 25-28, not argued separately, depend from claim 22 and stand or fall with that claim. Appellant argues that because Volz “disclos[es] the track position error based on the track number and discrete burst amplitudes,” Volz does not anticipate the limitation ”using linear regions of said first, second and third position error signals to adjust a track position of said head,” as claimed. Br. 13. We are not persuaded by this argument. Appeal 2010-005213 Application 11/125,597 7 Volz discloses that Xpe is “the track position error.” Col. 6, ll. 53-54. Further, Volz discloses that “additional linear regions in the Xpe calculation within a track are provided.” Volz. Col. 9, ll. 63-64. Based on these textual portions of Volz, we agree with the examiner that Volz discloses “using linear regions of said first, second and third position error signals to adjust a track position of said head.” Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 22, and 25-28 under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Volz. 35 U.S.C. 103(a) - Ehrlich and Volz Claim 23, not argued separately, depends from claim 22 and stands or falls with that claim. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ehlich and Volz. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 3-5, 8-10, 12, 13 and 38-42 is reversed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 22, 23, 25-28 is affirmed. 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) (2010). Appeal 2010-005213 Application 11/125,597 8 AFFIRMED-IN-PART ke