Appeal No. 1998-0690
Application No. 08/562,796
We note that appellant has set forth four groupings of claims, yet we note that a
number of claims do not contain the argued limitations. Each of the independent claims
have slight variations in the combination of claim limitations with respect to the number and
placement of posts and respective orientation of the actuator and disk. Regardless of the
grouping, we find that the examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness.
Appellant argues that the circuit board of Morehouse is not “immediately adjacent”
to the base. (See brief at pages 6-7.) We agree with appellant. In view of the ordinary
definition of adjacent as modified by immediately, it is clear that the spaced relation cited
at column 17 of Morehouse would not teach or fairly suggest the claimed relationship as
recited in claim 2 and dependent claim 3. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection
thereto.
Appellant argues that Morehouse does not teach or fairly suggest the area of
increased rigidity, placement of posts relative to the ends of the drive or the placement of
the actuator and/or disk substantially on a line between the posts or within the
area of increased rigidity. While we agree with the examiner that the affixation of the
mounts 212 shown in Figures 12A and 12B of Morehouse would inherently provide
some increased rigidity when affixed to the computer, it is not clear from the express
disclosure of Morehouse that increased rigidity is needed or desired. Furthermore, the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007