Appeal No. 1999-2285
Application 08/826,277
Appellants argue that there is no motivation for
combining the teachings of the applied prior art because the
artisan would not look to references which disclose T-type
flexures in an attempt to produce the integral flexure and
load beam of the claimed invention. Appellants also argue
that the combination proposed by the examiner would improperly
destroy the intended function of Higashiyama. Finally,
appellants argue that the thinning of gimbal arms in the width
direction as suggested by Yumura does not evidence the
obviousness of the claimed invention which thins gimbal arms
in the height direction [brief, pages 9-15]. The examiner
disagrees with each of these arguments [answer, pages 5-7].
Although appellants’ first two arguments above do not
convince us that the rejection is in error, we do find the
third argument to be convincing that the rejection is not
supported by the evidence on this record. As pointed out by
appellants and admitted by the examiner, Yumura thins gimbal
arms in the width direction rather than in the height
direction as claimed. The examiner’s position is tantamount
to saying that a given amount of material can obviously be
removed from a gimbal without regard to where this material is
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007