Ex Parte Feist et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 14, 2010

11357821 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 14, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JASON M. FEIST, DALLAS S. HOLM, JR.,
SIEW KIN CHOW, and SCOTT E. RYUN
____________

Appeal 2009-004762
Application 11/357,821
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, MAHSHID D. SAADAT,
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-004762
Application 11/357,821

2
Appellants request rehearing of our decision entered March 24, 2010
(“Decision”), in which we affirmed the rejection of claims 1, 8, 9, and 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We have carefully considered the arguments presented by Appellants
in the Request and reviewed our decision. However, those arguments do not
persuade us that our decision was in error in any respect or we have
overlooked any relevant points in reaching our decision that the Examiner
properly rejected claims 1, 8, 9, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellants argue that our analysis of the claimed feature of
determining a “response function” is incorrect (Request 2). Appellants
further assert that the claimed “response function is not a technique for
adjusting fly height, but instead a technique for calibrating PTR
adjustments” (id.). Appellants further rely on various teachings in the
Specification (¶¶ [0021], [0022], and [0043]-[0044]) to define the response
function as the relationship between a setting adjustment of a heater in the
pole tip and the PTR adjustment (Request 2-3).
We disagree and note that Appellants’ discussion of the response
function in the Specification and the breadth of claim 1 do not necessarily
require us to interpret the response function as the relationship between
heater setting adjustment and the PTR adjustment. In that regard, claim 1
merely requires “a response function of a change in the distance between the
data storage medium and the transducer relative to a change in selected
settings of the plurality of selectable settings,” which includes no reference
to the relationship between a setting adjustment of a heater in the pole tip.
Appellants’ Specification discloses that a response function correlates
the distance between the disc and the pole tip for each of the plurality of
Appeal 2009-004762
Application 11/357,821

3
selectable settings of the deformable material (Spec. ¶¶ [0022]) or recites the
relationship between changing a pole tip spacing to a setting change
particular to a head (Spec. ¶ [0048]). While the Specification discloses the
heater setting as an example of the adjustment settings used to increase the
spacing between the transducer and the disc (Spec. ¶ [0043]), claim 1 does
not require the response function necessarily relate to the heater setting. As
such, we decline to import limitations from the disclosure into the claim and
limit the recited response function of a change in the distance between the
data storage medium and the transducer to the heater setting relationship.
We also disagree with Appellants’ contention (Request 3-4) that
Crane discloses fly height adjustments based on using a feedback loop
instead of determining a response function. While Crane indicates that a
read signal is used as a feedback signal for controlling the fly height (col. 9,
ll. 6-10), the read signal, nonetheless, is disclosed to include one or more
characteristics such as amplitude of pulses, presence of thermal asperities on
the disc surface, or the off-track position error of the transducer (col. 9, ll.
10-19). In other words, as we stated in our decision (Decision 6-7), the
controller 746 in Crane determines a response function that relates the fly
height to a setting change particular to a head.

CONCLUSION
Therefore, based on the foregoing, we have granted Appellants’
request to the extent that we have reconsidered our decision, but we deny
Appellants’ request to make any change therein.

Appeal 2009-004762
Application 11/357,821

4
ORDER
The request for rehearing is denied.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

REHEARING DENIED

gvw

SHUMAKER & SIEFFERT, P.A.
1625 RADIO DRIVE
SUITE 300
WOODBURY, MN 55125