Appeal No. 2002-2015 Page 11
Application No. 09/232,138
Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts
to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038,
1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We turn to representative claim 4. The examiner's position
(answer, page 4) is that Hatchett does not disclose each of the
HDAs having a head position and spindle motor controller. To
overcome this deficiency in Hatchett, the examiner turns to
Bajorek for a teaching of a plurality of HDAs 50 that are
connected to a main PCB 51 wherein Bajorek sets forth in col. 3,
line 6 et seq. that the electronic functions for controlling the
HDAs are performed by components 40 which are placed inside each
of the HDAs. The examiner opines (answer, page 4) that:
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to provide each of the HDA's of Hatchett et al
with the head and spindle control circuitry taught by
Bajorek et al. The rationale is as follows: one of
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007