Appeal No. 1997-4446
Application No. 08/278,151
However, there is no teaching or suggestion in the art to use
the closed loop of AAPA and apply the resultant control signal
to a second head. Yamashita makes no reference to the
relationship between two actuators or heads during operation
of a magnetic recording reproduction apparatus. Yamashita
merely teaches a converging process for determining a supply
voltage signal for a single head during manufacture. Thus,
the examiner's motivation for modifying AAPA to arrive at the
claimed invention clearly is not suggested by the prior art,
but rather must come from appellants' own disclosure.
"Obviousness may not be established using hindsight or in view
of the teachings or suggestions of the inventor." Para-
Ordnance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d
1085, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1995), citing W.L. Gore
& Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553,
220 USPQ 303, 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, and we cannot sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 1 through 7, 9, 19 through 40, and 47.
CONCLUSION
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007