Appeal No. 1998-3365
Application No. 08/673,214
relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See Id.; In re
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788
(Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189
USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made
by appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments
which appellant could have made but chose not to make in the
brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
With respect to representative, independent claim 1, the
examiner points out several features of the magnetic disk
apparatus taught by Ohsawa. The examiner observes that Ohsawa
teaches all the features of claim 1 except for the recitation
of an optical head. The examiner finds that it would have
been obvious to the artisan to place the spindle motor of
Ohsawa into an optical disk drive to read and write from an
optical head rather than a magnetic head as taught by Ohsawa
[answer, pages 3-4]. The examiner also indicates that the
relationship recited in the last clause of claim 1 is met by
the magnetic head apparatus of Ohsawa.
Appellant argues that the magnetic disk supporting and
rotating means of Ohsawa does not need the protrusions and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007