Appeal No. 97-1647 Page 10
Application No. 08/321,255
By recognizing the problem and offering a solution,
Murata would have suggested using a laser to permanently bend
Owe’s flexure arm to thereby adjust the position of Owe’s head
to a position that would not fluctuate with vibrations or
temperature changes. Thus, the prior art as a whole would
have suggested the desirability of making the combination to
obtain the claimed invention.
Third and last, the appellants argue, “[s]ince the Murata
et al. reference does not pertain to fly height adjustment, a
combination of the ... references would not result in the
claimed invention in which a laser is used to permanently bend
a flexure arm to thereby adjust the fly height.” (Appeal Br.
at 11.)
We find that the prior art would have suggested the
claimed invention. One cannot establish non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where a rejection is based
on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In determining
obviousness, furthermore, references are read not in isolation
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007