Appeal No. 96-2181
Application No. 07/963,440
case. It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions.
In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
With regard to the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wright in view of
Blaeser, Hinlein and Erpelding, Appellants argue on page 12 of
the brief that “The cited references provide no hint of the
claimed arrangement including a suspension load beam with a
load dimple bearing in direct engagement with a slider and
extending through a flexible cable interconnect.” (emphasis
added).
Reviewing claim 1 we find “said suspension load beam
including a load dimple bearing in direct engagement with said
slider...”(lines 14-16), and “said load dimple extending
through said flexible cable interconnect,...” (lines 21 and
22).
-6-6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007