Appeal No. 97-1647 Page 21
Application No. 08/321,255
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner failed to show
that Owe, Murata, Fechner, and Buettner teach or would have
suggested rotating the disc at a rate of rotation which is
less than a normal minimum operating rate during the step of
adjusting fly height of claim 13 and its dependent claims 14
and 15. Similarly, he failed to show that the references
teach or would have suggested or the rotating the disc at a
rate of rotation which is less than a normal minimum operating
rate during the heating of the flexure arm of claim 16 and its
dependent claims 17-21. Therefore, we find the examiner’s
rejection does not amount to a prima facie case of
obviousness. Because the examiner has not established a prima
facie case, the rejection of claims 13-21 over Owe in view of
Murata further in view of Fechner further in view of Buettner
is improper. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We end our consideration of the claims by concluding we
are not required to raise or consider any issues not argued by
the appellants. Our reviewing court stated, “[i]t is not the
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007