Appeal No. 1999-2285
Application 08/826,277
actually made by appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but
chose not to make in the brief have not been considered [see
37 CFR
§ 1.192(a)].
The examiner cites Higashiyama as teaching the claimed
invention except that Higashiyama does not show a one piece
load beam and flexure along with arms which have been thinned
in a direction perpendicular to the transverse and
longitudinal directions. Ariga is cited as teaching a one
piece load beam and flexure. The examiner finds that it would
have been obvious to make the flexure and load beam of
Higashiyama as a one piece integral unit as taught by Ariga.
Yumura is cited for teaching a gimbal in which the arms have
been thinned in the width direction of the gimbal. The
examiner finds that it would have been obvious to thin the
arms of Higashiyama as taught by Yumura to reduce the
torsional rigidity of the gimbal. Although Yumura does not
teach the thinning of material in the height direction as
claimed, the examiner finds that there is no unobvious result
in thinning the gimbal arms in the height direction over that
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007