Appeal No. 98-0594
Application 08/615,461
However, no specific prior art reference has been applied
which illustrates the so called “notoriously well known
technique.” Neither one of the two references included in the
stated ground of rejection contains the necessary teaching.
Nor do the two cited references in combination yield the
suggestion. It is the examiner’s burden and obligation to
produce the evidence sufficient to render obvious the rejected
claims. That, the examiner has not done. Note that the
examiner’s discussion concerning classification of inventions
falls short of identifying any particular reference against
the appellant’s claims, which includes the feature at issue
here.
Moreover, even assuming that it was generally known to
connect some element to another element by placing the former
in the die casting which forms the latter and then applying
molten material into the die casting, that does not
automatically establish that it would have been obvious to
place the magnetic plate for a disk drive within the die
casting which forms a portion of the disk drive housing. A
comparison should be made between a pair of elements known to
be connected in this manner and the combination of magnetic
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007