Appeal No. 98-0594
Application 08/615,461
construed as an affirmative indication that the appellant’s
claims are patentable over prior art. We address only the
positions and rationale as set forth by the examiner and on
which the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal is
based.
The examiner’s rationale contains several errors,
deficiencies, and omissions, all of which undermine the
persuasiveness of the stated ground of rejection.
On page 3 of the answer, the examiner states that Tsujino
shows the step of “locating the magnet plate within a die
casting (the base and cover are both aluminum die casted: see
column 2, lines 65-68) for at least a portion of the housing
of the disk drive.” The finding has no basis on this record.
Tsujino does not disclose locating a magnet plate within any
die casting used to form a portion of the disk drive housing.
While the cover 14 and the bottom casing 12 (Figure 1) of
Tsujino’s disk drive may have been formed by pouring molten
material inside a die casting, the magnet plate of Tsujino
(38, 40) is subsequently connected to the cover or the bottom
casing by screws and is not disclosed anywhere as having been
placed within the die casting used to form the cover or the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007