Appeal No. 1998-0819
Application 08/541,656
treat claim 9 as a representative claim of that group.
On page 6 of the Brief, Appellants quote the Examiner’s
statement as item (1) that Foote shows a rotary actuator
assembly in figures 1 through 4 that includes: storage disks
1a; E-block 5 with an offset ear (Figure 4) with an indented
mirror-arm opening between the ear; short tines 5c attach by
bolts 5e; heads and gimbals; elongated tine extenders 3d to
which load beams 3b are attached.” Appellants state that they
agree in part but disagree as to the gimbals. The Examiner’s
response on page 6 of the answer stating that to use a gimbal
in Foote would have been inherent. The Examiner points to the
background section of Foote, column 1, lines 46 through 50,
for the basis of finding inherency stating that “thin,
lightweight spring material
providing flexible mobility of the magnetic head,” actually
describe the structure in use of a gimbal. Appellants do not
respond to this argument.
We note that claim 2 scope does not require gimbals.
Because the claims stand or fall together and claim 2 is the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007