Appeal No. 2003-0599
Application 09/362,149
spring force to counteract the aerodynamic lift force generated
on the head slider during the drive operation.
In light of the foregoing, we again note that neither
Simmons nor McIlvanie discloses or teaches a disk drive
suspension comprising a load beam “formed from a single web of
metal” and having a proximal end “fixed directly to an actuator
spindle,” as set forth in both independent claims 26 and 27 on
appeal, and for that reason will not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 3, 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Simmons in view of McIlvanie.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 4
through 14 and 16 through 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Simmons, McIlvanie and Miller, we
again find ourselves in agreement with appellants’ position
(corrected brief, pages 18-20) that the examiner’s further
reliance on Miller for right and left limiters (60) and the
examiner’s questionable use of Official notice for a lift cam
does not supply or otherwise overcome the deficiencies in the
basic combination of Simmons and McIlvanie noted above.
Thus, since we have determined that the teachings and
suggestions which would have been fairly derived from
Simmons, McIlvanie and Miller would not have made the subject
matter as a whole of claims 4 through 14 and 16 through
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007