Appeal No. 98-0594
Application 08/615,461
plate and disk drive housing. Since the examiner provided no
example of specific prior art elements connected in the manner
required by the claims, no meaningful comparison was or could
have been made by the examiner. Perhaps some reference does
exist which, in combination with Tsujino, would have rendered
obvious the appellant’s claimed invention, but the examiner
has cited none. The appellant disputes the conclusion that
it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the
art to connect the magnetic plate to the disk drive housing by
executing the claimed step of placing the magnetic plate
within the die casting for forming at least a portion of the
disk drive housing. In this circumstance, the examiner must,
in discharging his duty and obligation for setting forth the
evidentiary basis of the rejection made, identify a specific
reference which reasonably would have suggested the claimed
step. No such identification was made. We cannot simply
presume that there is such prior art.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 12-15
cannot be sustained.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007