Appeal No. 95-4550
Application 08/025,902
defined in the appealed claims. With regard to the second
rejection mentioned above, the examiner concludes that the
teachings of Yumura would have made it obvious to offset Yamada’s
dimple from the center of Yamada’s slider-supporting flexure
portion in a direction to lie in the proximity of Yamada’s double
bend bight portion. Implicit in the first rejection is the
finding that the only difference between Yumura and appealed
claims 1 and 6 resides in the double bend flexure bight portion
as defined in these independent claims, and implicit in the
second rejection is the finding that the only difference between
Yamada and claims 1 and 6 resides in the offset location of the
dimple as defined in these claims. Appellant does not argue
otherwise.
In arguing the patentability of claims 1 through 8 as a
group, appellant contends that Yumura teaches away from the use
of a double bend flexure bight portion to defeat the motivation
to combine the reference teachings for the reasons set forth on
pages 9-13 of the brief. In apparent support of this argument,
appellant contends on page 11 of the brief that Yumura and Yamada
“seek to solve separate and distinct problems.” In further
arguing the patentability of claims 1 through 8 as a group,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007