Appeal No. 2005-0661
Application No. 09/894,480
In applying Heath against the appealed claims, the examiner
focuses on the disk drive embodiment shown in Figures 17 and 18
as understood in light of the disk drive embodiment depicted in
Figures 1 through 4.
As framed and argued by the appellants, the dispositive
issue with respect to the anticipation rejection of independent
claims 1, 8 and 15 is whether Heath meets the limitations in
claims 1 and 8 requiring the pivot leaves to be “transversely
disposed at an angle to one another,” and the limitation in claim
15 requiring the “means for pivotably coupling the actuator to
the base.” The examiner’s determination that Heath responds to
these limitations rests on a finding that Heath’s flexible plate
7 and spring 21 constitute leaves which are transversely disposed
at an angle to one another. Although claim 15 does not literally
recite “leaves,” let alone leaves that are “transversely disposed
at an angle to one another,” the examiner recognizes that the
“means for pivotably coupling the actuator to the base” language
in the claim is a means-plus-function limitation which must be
construed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, to
cover the corresponding structure described in the specification
and equivalents thereof. In the examiner’s view,
Heath is an equivalent of the means set forth in claim
15 in that the prior art to Heath performs the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007