Appeal No. 97-1647 Page 17
Application No. 08/321,255
Murata, and Fechner evidences that the references neither
teach nor would have suggested the claimed coupling to the
sensor and the claimed basing control of the laser on the
sensor’s output.
As aforementioned, the examiner admits that Owe in view
of Murata does not even disclose a sensor to detect contact
between the disc and the head. Fechner, in turn, discloses
methods and apparatus for detecting interference between the
head and recording disks of a head/disk assembly in magnetic
disk drives. Col. 1, ll. 5-9. The reference employs a
transducer to detect acoustic stress waves corresponding to
interaction between the disks and the heads. Col. 3, ll. 35-
38. The examiner neglected to identify any teaching,
suggestion, or incentive in Fechner or elsewhere for coupling
the output of the transducer to a laser for control thereof.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner failed to show
that Owe, Murata, and Fechner teach or would have suggested
the controller of claim 7 and its dependent claims 8-12.
Therefore, we find the examiner’s rejection does not amount to
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007