Appeal No. 2002-2027 Page 8
Application No. 09/209,304
(Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the
teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the claimed subject matter
to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, as aforementioned, the examiner reads the claimed force constant on
what he terms a "force constant (factor)" allegedly taught by Stich. He cites two
passages of the reference to support his position. The first passage, viz., col. 6, ll. 10-
14, includes no such terminology. The second passage does mention that an "actuator
carriage 21 and transducer suspension 34 . . . have a mechanical force constant Kf,"
col. 10, ll. 50-52, and that a "velocity estimator 56, know[s] the actuator/driver
parameters, that is actuator force constant (Kf). . . ." Col. 11, 38-39. The examiner fails
to show, however, that the reference's force constant, Kf, is determined based on the
difference between a desired velocity and a measured velocity during the acceleration
of its actuator. Relying on Lee "for the teaching of the actual velocity error for
substituting the estimated velocity error in Stich et al so an accurate velocity error to be
achieved," (Examiner's Answer at 8), the examiner fails to show that the addition of Lee
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007