Appeal No. 95-3124
Application No. 08/125,311
servo transducer of servo head 14 is the data head 18 (the
first data head) which shares the same actuator arm assembly
with the servo head 14" (paper number 8, page 6). The
examiner concludes (paper number 8, page 7) that:
Since the amplitude of the noise induced for a given
write current is inversely proportional to the
distance between the servo and the data head, the
write current of a typical first data head is
preferred to be smaller than that of the second data
head. Hence, in order to obtain an uniform and
optimum error rate, it would be obvious that the
write current varies in the system as taught by
Sidman/Weispfenning et al./Nguyen et al.”
Appellants argue (Brief, page 28) that “[t]he stark fact
is that not a single one of the references applied by the
Examiner even mentions electromagnetic interference between
collaterally spaced data [and] servo heads or relative values
of write currents between such heads.” We agree. The
examiner has reached a conclusion that “the write current of a
typical first data head is preferred to be smaller than that
of the second data head” without the benefit of any evidence
in the record, except for appellants’ disclosed and claimed
invention. Inasmuch as a prima facie case of obviousness can
(specification, page 4).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007