Appeal No. 1999-2705
Application 08/686,756
the rejection and references in the light most favorable to
the Examiner, we presume that the Examiner proposes that it
would have been obvious (1) to store and apply individual
magnetizing current values to the recording heads in Lehureau
in view of Christner and Masaki, and (2) to store values in a
nonvolatile memory as taught by Masaki instead of storing
values on a disk and transferring them to a RAM upon startup
as in Christner.
We find no motivation in Christner or Masaki to modify
Lehureau to store and recall individual magnetizing current
values. Christner teaches adaptively controlling the biasing
of a magneto resistive read head in a magnetic disk drive and,
thus, Christner does not show or suggest any process for
adjusting write currents in write heads. The Examiner offers
no explanation of why bias currents in the read heads of
Christner would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify write currents in write heads of the matrix
recording head in Lehureau. Because Christner does not deal
with adjusting write currents in write heads, the only
apparent explanation for the modification of Lehureau in view
of Christner is hindsight in view of Appellant's disclosure.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007