Appeal No. 1998-0819
Application 08/541,656
will thereby sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2
through 8, 14 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
In regards to the rejection of group II claims,
Appellants argue on page 7 that Jurgenson does not show or
teach swaging outside of the locus or periphery of the data
storage disk. We note that Appellants’ claim 9 does require
“at least one head suspension assembly attached to at least
one short tine by swaging of a swaging boss thereof into an
opening define on the planar surface of the short tine and
support a data transducer head assembly in flying proximity to
a data storage surface of the rotating data storage disk, the
data transducer head assembly being affixed to a head gimbal
portion of the head suspension
assembly at a distal end thereof and facing away from the head
suspension assembly in the same direction as the swage boss.”
We note that the Examiner has not found any specific
evidence as to a teaching of this limitation or why one of
ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such a
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007