Appeal No. 1998-0446
Application 08/572,195
appellant could have made but chose not to make in the brief have
not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 1, the
examiner cites Edwards as teaching a magnetic disk drive of the
type disclosed and claimed except that the air flow in Edwards
does not flow as recited in claim 1 and the dust filter in
Edwards is not located in the specific location recited in claim
1 [answer, pages 3-4]. The examiner cites Yokoyama and Ebihara
as teaching magnetic disk drives in which dust filters are
located at different positions from the dust filter of Edwards.
The examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to locate
Edwards’ filter in the manner recited in claim 1 based on the
teachings of Yokoyama and Ebihara [id., page 4].
Appellant argues that it would not have been obvious to
combine the teachings of the applied references because the air
flow path generated in Yokoyama and Ebihara cannot occur in
Edwards so there would be no motivation to locate a dust filter
in Edwards as suggested by either Yokoyama or Ebihara [brief,
pages 4-6]. Appellant also argues that even if it would have
been obvious to combine the teachings of Edwards with Yokoyama
and Ebihara, there would still be no teaching of placing the
filter on a path along which the stream of air flows after being
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007