Appeal No. 1998-2585
Application No. 08/643,935
Appellants’ arguments (brief, page 8), Ooyama does show
support 21 having a cavity (even though there are more than
one) and electrical cables have a portion positioned over the
cavity. Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection over
Ooyama and Picault of independent claims 15 and 22, and their
grouped claims 16, 18 and 19, and claims 23, and 25 to 27.
With respect to claim 28, in Ooyama, each set of the first and
second bending parts serve the recited flexible connection
between the slider 11 and each flexure arm of support 21.
Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 28
over Ooyama and Picault.
Rejection of claims 5, 6, and 8 to 12
We consider independent claim 5 as representative of this
group. The Examiner has added Johnson to the combination of
Ooyama and Picault discussed with respect to claim 1 above.
We find that claim 5 has the same two limitations as claim 1
discussed above. The addition of Johnson does not cure the
deficiencies noted above in the combination of Ooyama and
Picault with respect to claim 1. Johnson was used for an
entirely different purpose. Therefore, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of independent claim 5 and its dependent
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007