Appeal No. 2000-1232
Application 09/114,954
have directed no arguments to the specific features of claim 24
in the arguments portion of the brief beginning at the bottom of
page 6. Whereas independent claims 18 and 21 on appeal recite
specifically ?a disc snubber," claim 24 more broadly recites a
?limit means." The disc snubber of independent claims 18 and 21
further requires a layer of material over-molded onto a portion
of the rigid actuator arm recited earlier in these claims such
that the snubber performs the function of limiting deflection of
the disc resulting from application of a non-operational shock to
the disc drive. Without reciting any of these intermediate
structural features and relationships and without reciting a
corresponding rigid actuator arm, claim 24 only more broadly
recites the same limiting function.
Although we noted earlier that appellants have presented no
specific arguments as to independent claim 24 on appeal, the
focus of the arguments relies upon the claimed disc snubber which
appears only in independent claims 18 and 21 on appeal. On the
other hand, appellants recognize that the teachings in Alt
indicate that a shock bumper 124 absorbs forces resulting from
non-operational shock inflicted upon a computer disc drive.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007