Appeal No. 1999-2703
Application No. 08/772,068
“gimbal” spring, as shown as element 7 in Figure 4 of the
instant application and as argued by appellant at page 5 of
the reply brief. In the reply brief, appellant points out
that the gimbal “is important because [the] slider head moves
not only along the recorded track, but also in a seek . . .
direction. Who knows how the slider head will move if the
Hamagushi [sic, Hamaguchi]. . . zig-zag or swastika spring is
substituted for applicant’s spring?” The examiner does not
respond. Accordingly, the examiner has not presented a prima
facie case of anticipation since a “gimbal spring,” as
claimed, has not been persuasively shown as being taught by
Hamaguchi.
Since we have not sustained the rejection of claim 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), we also will not sustain the
rejection of claim 7, dependent thereon, under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e). Likewise, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
6 and 8, dependent upon claim 7, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
neither Yamaguchi nor Hamilton cures the deficiency noted
above.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007