Ex Parte Mendonsa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2017

14276504 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2017)

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.
14/276,504 05/13/2014 Riyan Mendonsa STX.124.A1 9832
98068 7590
Hollingsworth Davis
8000 West 78th Street
Suite 450
Minneapolis, MN 55439
EXAMINER
ALUNKAL, THOMAS D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2017 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
roswood@hdpatlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RIYAN MENDONSA and PUSKAL PRASAD POKHAREL
Appeal 2016-005126
Application 14/276,504
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 3 through 12, and 14 through 20. We have jurisdiction over the
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2016-005126
Application 14/276,504
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for servo tracking a disk
where a first head reads a portion of servo head and a second head reads a
portion of the same servo mark. See Specification p. 10.11. 7—8. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed invention and reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
reading at least a portion of a first servo mark using a first
read head during a rotation of a disk, the rotation comprising no
more than 360 degrees;
reading at least a second portion of the first servo mark
using a second read head during the rotation of the disk;
reading at least a portion of a second servo mark using the
second read head during the rotation of the disk; and
determining tracking positions of the first read head and
the second read head during the rotation based on reading the
first servo mark and the second servo mark.
REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3 through 12, and 14 through20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Kikitsu (US 5,729,408; Mar.
17, 1998). Answer 2, Final Action 3—6.1
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We agree with Appellants’
1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed August 28,
2015, Reply Brief filed April 11, 2016, Final Action mailed January 28,
2015, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on February 11, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-005126
Application 14/276,504
conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1,12,
and 18.
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,
12, and 18 is in error as Kikitsu does not teach the claimed step of reading a
portion of a single servo mark with two separate heads. App. Br. 5—7 and
Reply Br. 5—6.
The Examiner finds that Kikitsu teaches plural servo marks on
adjacent tracks are read by a single read head. Final Act 4. (Citing Figs 1,
12, and col. 19,11. 34—67), Answer 3^4. Specifically, the Examiner states:
Kikitsu discloses that reading servo information on adjacent
tracks is performed in a temporally overlapping manner. More
specifically, Column 19, lines 55—67 of Kikitsu disclose that
servo information regions 81 on adjacent tracks are formed so
that servo information on adjacent racks are read in a temporally
overlapping manner. The applicant interprets the noted section
of Kikitsu as disclosing that one head is reading a servo region at
the same time another head is reading another servo region. The
examiner interprets the noted section of Kikitsu as disclosing that
servo information regions are formed so that servo information
regions on adjacent tracks are read in an overlapping manner.
Moreover, since the servo information regions are read in an
overlapping manner, plural servo marks on adjacent tracks are
read by a single read head.
Answer 3. We have reviewed the cited disclosure of Kikitsu relating to the
portions of the same track that are read by two separate heads as recited by
each of independent claims 1, 12, and 18. The cited disclosure of Kikitsu
discusses Figure 12, which shows that the servo information on the tracks
are not arranged in a temporally overlapping manner (e.g., in Figure 12 the
servo tracks do not line up in time) and discusses that in another
embodiment they can be temporally overlapping (e.g., if Figure 12 were
3
Appeal 2016-005126
Application 14/276,504
modified to depict the servo tracks overlapping in time). We do not,
however, find that the disclosure shows that any one of the servo tracks are
read by more than one head as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 12, 18, and the
claims which depend thereupon.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3 through 12, and 14
through 20 is reversed.
REVERSED
4