Appeal No. 2001-1094
Application 09/237,578
surface of the slider. Further, Appellant points out that the
Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to relocate
the Flechsig sensor on the side face surface of the slider in
view of the teachings in Horikawa of locating a force sensor on
the side face of a slider to test for roughness. See Appeal
Brief, page 12, lines 11-16. However, Appellant argues that the
Examiner has failed to present some objective teaching leading to
the purported combination of these references. In addition,
Appellant argues that a careful reading of these references would
steer one of ordinarily skill away from combining them in the
manner suggested by the Examiner. See Appeal Brief, Page 13,
lines 9-13.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See Also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 87 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007