Appeal No. 95-4550
Application 08/025,902
forth in In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 420, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA
1981). Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1 and
6 based on Yumura in view of Yamada and also the rejection of
these claims based on Yamada in view of Yumura. In addition, we
will sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2 through 5, 7 and
8 based on Yumura in view of Yamada, as well as the rejection of
these dependent claims based on Yamada in view of Yumura, because
the patentability of these dependent claims has not been argued
separately of their respective parent claims. See In re Nielson,
816 F.2d 1567, 1570, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987) and In
re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 1178-79, 201 USPQ 67, 70 (CCPA 1979).
With regard to the rejections of dependent claims 9 and 10,
each of these dependent claims defines a unique position of the
transducer head slider with respect to the free end of the
flexure member. According to claim 9, the claimed location
prevents wiring for the transducer from crashing onto a disc, and
according to claim 10 the claimed location allows the flexure to
access more data. We find no suggestion in the cited prior art
that would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify
either Yumura or Yamada to meet the terms of these dependent
claims. As a result, both the examiner’s rejections of claims 9
and 10 must fail for lack of a sufficient factual basis. See In
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007