Appeal No. 97-1647 Page 18
Application No. 08/321,255
a prima facie case of obviousness. Because the examiner has
not established a prima facie case, the rejection of claims 7-
12 over Owe in view of Murata further in view of Fechner is
improper. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Next, we consider obviousness of
claims 13-21.
Obviousness of Claims 13-21
The examiner begins his rejection of independent claims
13 and 16 by admitting that “Owe et al. in view of Murata et
al. in view of Fechner does not disclose to rotate [sic] the
disc at a slower speed to calibrate the flexure arm.” (Final
Rejection at 5.) He opines, “Buettner et al. teaches to
calibrate [sic] the fly height at various speeds disc rotation
[sic] in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of
eliminating the heads from sliding on the disk for periods of
time ....” (Id. at 6.) The examiner ends the rejection by
concluding that it would have been obvious “to calibrate the
fly height at various speeds disc rotation as taught by
Buettner et al. on the system of Owe et al. in view of Murata
et al. in view of Fechner in order to eliminate the heads from
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007