Appeal No. 1998-0158 Page 9
Application No. 08/427,587
addressed in the two references are completely different.”
(Appeal Br. at 20.) The examiner replies, “JP 189463 [i.e.,
Takeshita] shows the positioning of a head with respect to a
medium.” (Examiner’s Answer at 8.)
The examiner fails to identify a permissible suggestion
to combine Yohda and Takeshita to obtain the claimed
invention. Takeshita teaches that “a laser beam is irradiated
on [a] head spring portion to adjust the spring pressure so as
to realize an appropriate head flotation height as desired.”
Translation, p. 5. The examiner does not allege, let alone
show, however, any advantage of combining the teaching with
those of Yohda.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the
prior art as a whole would have suggested the desirability,
and thus the obviousness, of combining Yohda and Takeshita.
The examiner has impermissibly relied on the appellants’
teachings or suggestions; he has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Yohda in view of Takeshita.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007