Appeal No. 96-1209
Application 08/168,805
the disk causes the read/write head to move away from the
tracks, minimizing potential damage to the slider, head,
suspension and disk while simultaneously preventing write
errors. Accordingly, the choice of moving the actuator arm to
this location is more than a mere design choice but, rather,
has disclosed advantages. Therefore, the examiner’s reliance
on In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 554-55, 188 USPQ 7, 8-9 (CCPA
1975) in this regard is misplaced.
With regard to claim 16, although appellant reiterates
the claim recitation, at page 14 of the brief, there is no
separate argument regarding the merits of this claim,
appellant, instead, relying on “the reasons expressed above
with respect to claims 1 and 17" [brief - pages 14-15].2
Accordingly, claim 16 will fall with claim 11.
Dependent claims not specifically argued by appellant
will fall with the claims from which they depend.
We have sustained the rejection of claims 11 through 15
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 (a) or (e) and we have sustained the
2While claim 16 depends from claim 11 and not from claim 1 or 17,
appellant obviously refers to the reasoning of the arguments regarding claims
1 and 17 because the time period of “at least 90msec” was a limitation argued
with regard to claims 1 and 17, that limitation not appearing in claim 11.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007