Appeal No. 2002-2015 Page 15
Application No. 09/232,138
are controlled by the servo processor, which is on control board
17. Although Bajorek discloses (col. 3, lines 6-8) that "t]he
electronic functions for controlling the disk drive are performed
by components 40 and VSLI chips 41 mounted directly to the base
structure," we find no suggestion, and no teaching or suggestion
has been pointed to by the examiner, of moving the servo
controller from the main board 17 of Hatchett and placing the
servo controller on data channel board 137. In addition, even
though Bajorek discloses (col. 2, lines 65-68) providing a sealed
enclosure to isolate the components from contamination, Bajorek
accomplishes this by providing a metal cap 35 for the assembly
(figures 3 and 5), and does not disclose moving the controller
functions from the main board to a sub board, because all of the
disk drives share a single circuit board 51.
From all of the above, We therefore find that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of
claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 17, and 20. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 4, 5, 12, 13, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
New Ground of Rejection under 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
We use our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b) to enter a new
ground of rejection of claims 6-8. Claims 6-8 are rejected under
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007