Appeal No. 1999-2703
Application No. 08/772,068
obvious to provide the load beam spring of Hamaguchi with a
thickness sequentially reduced as claimed “in order to
stabilize lateral movement of the spring suspension in a
manner well known, established and appreciated in the art, and
to further ensure that ‘flexure topography can be controlled
with infinite variety,’ ‘mass reducing,’ ‘resonance
characteristics,’ while ‘closely controlling fine-tuning of
mechanical performance specifications’” [answer-page 7].
Appellant argues [principal brief-page 10] that the
combination of Hamaguchi and Hamilton would destroy
Hamaguchi’s structure 14 if Hamilton’s structure 20 were to be
adopted in Hamaguchi. Again, combining the teachings of the
references does not involve an ability to combine their
specific structures. Hamaguchi appears to show a suspension
spring with a rectangular thickness wherein Hamilton teaches
[column 4, lines 37-47] that by employing a trapezoidal
flexure, many advantages are achieved as compared to a
rectangular shaped flexure. Accordingly, this would have
prima facie suggested to the artisan to employ a trapezoidal
shaped suspension spring in Hamaguchi.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007