Appeal No. 96-2181
Application No. 07/963,440
claim 1 has not been met. "Additionally, when determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the
invention."
Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085,
1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(citing W. L. Gore
& Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220
USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984)). We will therefore not sustain the rejection of claim
1, and thereby the rejection of its dependent claims 3 through
10.
Remaining independent claims 11 and 19 on appeal
also contain the above limitations discussed with regard to
claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “a load dimple formed in said suspension load
beam extending through said flexible signal cable and bearing
on each slider.” Claim 19 recites “said suspension load beam
including a load dimple bearing in direct engagement with said
slider.” Therefore we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claims 11 and 19 or the rejection of their
-9-9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007