Appeal No. 1998-0819 Application 08/541,656 for a reduction in the height of the disk drive. We further buttress the Examiner’s findings by pointing out that in column 1, lines 50 through 64, Hinlein states that the object of the invention is to reduce the height of the arm while maintaining the same degree of thickness, thereby allowing disks and multiple disk drive to be spaced closer together. Hinlein further states that the size of the disk drive is reduced or, alternately, more disks can be placed in the disk drive of a predetermined size. Therefore, we find that the Appellants have not pointed to any error on the part of the Examiner for combining these prior art references. We note that Appellants have chosen not to argue any of the other specific limitations of claims 2 as a basis for patentability. As stated by our reviewing court in In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391, 21 USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991), “[i]t is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail that argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the prior art.” 37 CFR § 1.192(a) (July 1, 1996) as amended at 10Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007