Appeal No. 1998-1819
Application No. 08/364,972
We do not find appellants' arguments regarding the alleged deficiencies of the
"resistive wire" of Sakamoto to be convincing. For one thing, Sakamoto at column 6, lines
18 through 22 makes clear that the strain gauge is not limited to the type employing a
"resistance wire." For another, Sakamoto discloses that direction of deflection of head 1
from its rest position is sensed, which suggests that strain gauge 15 responds differently to
tension and to compression. With no evidence provided in support of the position, we
consider appellants' argument to be untenable.
However, we are in ultimate agreement with appellants that the combined teachings
of the references fail to establish prima facie obviousness of the subject matter of instant
claim 1. Sakamoto is directed to a problem different from adjustment of fly height; namely,
overcoming mechanical vibrations which degrade tracking control, the tracking control
being effected by inducing an oscillatory motion in the supporting arm of a transducer.
Absent impermissible hindsight, we do not see how the teachings of Sakamoto would
have commended themselves to an artisan designing fly height servo control systems.
Moreover, appellants' arguments with respect to the lack of a rationale for the
proposed combination are well taken. The rejection asserts (Answer at 4) that the reason
for the combination would have been to provide more accurate tracking of the position of a
magnetic transducer. There is no factual support in the record for the position that the
servo system of Good would be improved by replacing or supplementing the HRF height
detector apparatus with a strain gauge, nor that the artisan would have recognized any
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007