Appeal No. 97-1647 Page 11
Application No. 08/321,255
but for what they fairly teach in combination with the prior
art as a whole. Id. at 1097, 231 USPQ at 380.
Here, the rejection is based on the combinations of Owe
and Murata. Owe pertains to fly height adjustment. The
appellants admit, “[t]he mechanism taught by Owe et al. relies
upon an adjustment screw ... to thereby adjust the fly height
of the slider.” (Appeal Br. at 6.) As aforementioned, Murata
teaches using a laser to permanently bend a base of a head to
thereby adjust the position of the head, col. 4, ll. 26-45,
rather than relying on a screw. The substitution of Murata’s
use of a laser for Owe’s fly-height adjustment screw would
result in the claimed invention in which a laser is used to
permanently bend a flexure arm to thereby adjust the fly
height. Therefore, we find that the prior art would have
suggested the invention of claim 1.
When the patentability of dependent claims is not argued
separately, the claims stand or fall with the claims from
which they depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ
136, 137 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991,
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007