Appeal No. 1999-2703
Application No. 08/772,068
50 of COL. 2, that an increase in slider mass (m ) results in
2
a corresponding decrease in º , which represents a twist angle
2
of the slider during operation” [answer-page 8]. As the
examiner further explains, at page 9 of the answer, the
“formulaic relationship is merely indicative of the intuitive
nature as it pertains to the benefits of increasing the slider
mass . . . ”
At page 5 of the reply brief, in arguing for
noncombinability, appellant points out that the drawings in
both reference patents show support springs which are
“completely different.” We are unpersuaded. Combining the
teachings of the references relied upon by the examiner does
not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.
In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA
1973).
The examiner’s reasoning appears sound to us as to why
the skilled artisan would have been led to employ a slider
mass of 57 mg (taught by Yamaguchi) in the device of
Hamaguchi, which does not specify the mass of the slider.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007