Appeal No. 1998-0695
Application 08/400,320
admits that Crapo does not show the “flex” circuit as recited
in claim 9. The examiner asserts that Tanaka teaches a flex
circuit, and the examiner asserts the obviousness of using
Tanaka’s teachings in the Crapo disc drive. The examiner also
notes that the location of the bonding pads in the combined
prior art is different from the location recited in claim 9,
but the examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to
move the location of the bonding pads in the manner recited in
claim 9 [answer, pages 9-11].
Appellant again makes only a single argument to rebut
the examiner’s rejection of claim 9. Specifically, appellant
argues that the collective teachings of Crapo and Tanaka do
not teach or suggest the claim recitation that “said flexible
printed circuit cable having a plurality of bonding pads
radially aligned with said gaps and located within the radial
extent of said windings and below the top of said stator
poles” [brief, page 7].
Specifically, appellant argues that the examiner’s proposed
relocation of Tanaka’s bonding pads is contrary to one of the
objectives of Tanaka and is not suggested by any of the
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007