Appeal No. 2002-2015 Page 9
Application No. 09/232,138
the circuitry on data channel board 137. Accordingly, we find
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
anticipation of independent claim 6. The rejection of claim 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hatchett is therefore
reversed. Independent claims 1, 15, and 18 similarly recite that
the sub PCBs are adapted for controlling, responsive to said main
PCB, reading/writing of data by the heads of the HDAs. With
respect to claim 18, although we agree with the examiner (answer,
page 6) that the term “plurality” does not require that the disks
have different storage capacities, as advanced by appellant
(brief, pages 23 and 24) we cannot sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 15, 16, and 18 because Hatchett does not
teach that the sub PCBs 137 are adapted for controlling,
responsively to said main PCB, reading /writing of data by the
heads of the HDAs. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1-3, 7-
11, 15, 16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 17,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hatchett in
view of Bajorek.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007