Appeal No. 1998-1465
Application No. 08/445,926
As a preliminary matter, we note that appellants indicate
on page 9 of the Brief that the claims do not stand or fall
together. Appellants argue the claims in the following four
groups: (1) claims 1, 6, and 10; (2) claim 2; (3) claim 4; and
(4) claims 8 and 9. We will treat the claims according to the
four groups as set forth by appellants, with claims 1, 2, 4,
and 8, respectively, as representative.
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will affirm the obviousness rejection of claims 1,
4, 6, and 8 through 10, but reverse the obviousness rejection
of claim 2.
Appellants argue (Brief, pages 11-12) that three elements
of claim 1 are lacking from Moon and (Brief, pages 12-13) that
neither Moon nor Roddy suggests combining the two references
to modify Moon. The three limitations discussed are: (1) an
enclosure defined by a base casting and a cover casting that
have a mating surface along the length of the data storage
disk drive, (2) the base casting including die-cast generated
predetermined zero draft geometries for mounting the spindle
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007