Appeal No. 1998-0819
Application 08/541,656
for a reduction in the height of the disk drive. We further
buttress the Examiner’s findings by pointing out that in
column 1, lines 50 through 64, Hinlein states that the object
of the invention is to reduce the height of the arm while
maintaining the same degree of thickness, thereby allowing
disks and multiple disk drive to be spaced closer together.
Hinlein further states that the size of the disk drive is
reduced or, alternately, more disks can be placed in the disk
drive of a predetermined size. Therefore, we find
that the Appellants have not pointed to any error on the part
of the Examiner for combining these prior art references.
We note that Appellants have chosen not to argue any of
the other specific limitations of claims 2 as a basis for
patentability. As stated by our reviewing court in In re
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285
(Fed. Cir. 1991), “[i]t is not the function of this court to
examine the claims in greater detail that argued by an
appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior
art.” 37 CFR § 1.192(a) (July 1, 1996) as amended at
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007