Appeal No. 97-1647 Page 15
Application No. 08/321,255
ll. 3-6. Numerical methods are employed to derive the fly
height of the head at each measurement velocity. Id. at ll.
17-19. In short, Buettner teaches monitoring fly height at
slow speeds. It does not teach adjusting fly height at slow
speeds as claimed. The examiner misinterpreted the reference
as teaching adjusting fly height at slow speeds, instead of
its actual teaching of monitoring fly height at slow speeds.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner failed to show
that Owe, Murata, and Buettner teach or would have suggested
the step of rotating the disc as in claim 2 and its dependent
claim 3. 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 2 and 3 over Owe in view of Murata further in view
of Buettner is improper. Therefore, we reverse the rejection
of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Next, we consider the
obviousness of claims 7-12.
Obviousness of Claims 7-12
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007