Appeal No. 1999-2284
Application 08/798,443
Appellants' precisely claimed structural orientation of the spindle
motor.
The Examiner, therefore, having failed to show some objective
teaching or suggestion in the prior art of Vettel of Appellants'
claimed subject matter, has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Similarly, dependent claim 8 incorporates all the limitations
of independent claim 5. We have already established that Vettel does
not teach the claim 5 limitation "an enclosure case containing part
of a spindle motor for rotating a magnetic disk and a voice coil
motor." Neither does Vettel, either alone or in combination, suggest
the claimed structure. Therefore, with respect to claim 8, the
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 4,
8, and 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Vettel.
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007