Appeal No. 1999-1924 Page 16
Application No. 08/486,545
latch, and parking arm, are known in the art per se, the
examiner has not produced any evidence that the claimed bias
coil arm was so much as known in the art, much less that it
would have been obvious to add such a bias coil assembly to
the inventor's previously claimed subject matter. 9
In summary, the examiner has failed to establish that the
claims under appeal are not patentably distinct from claim 1
of U.S. Patent No. 5,684,776; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.
5,703,857; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,724,331; and claim 1
of copending Application No. 08/482,052. Likewise, the
examiner has failed to establish that the claims under appeal
are obvious from or generic to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No.
5,684,776; claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 5,703,857; claim 1 of
U.S. Patent No. 5,724,331; and claim 1 of copending
Application No. 08/482,052. Furthermore, it is our view that
9While the examiner did not require restriction between
the claims that were pending in Application No. 08/296,794
(now U.S. Patent 5,724,331), as far as we are able to
determine there was no reason why it would not have been
proper for the examiner to have made a restriction requirement
under the criteria of distinctness set forth in MPEP §
806.05(c).
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007