Appeal No. 2000-1320
Application No. 08/796,737
and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.1 Therefore, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 6, 8 and 16.
35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner relies upon the teachings of the AAPA which teaches a
conventional straddle-mounted spring in view of Mizuno which teaches the use of a
dimple on the arm as pivot. Again, we disagree with the examiner since the examiner
has not addressed the invention as recited in the language of the claim. The examiner
maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to include a dimple on the arm to further stabilize the slider. (See answer
at page 5.) But the examiner does not address the fact that the prior art straddle-
mounted spring is integral with the arm and that a dimple formed on the arm would not
"support a midpoint of the displacement portion or provide a fulcrum about which the
displacement portion 33 is tiltable." (See brief at pages 13-14.) Therefore, the
combination applied by the examiner does not teach or fairly suggest the invention as
recited in independent claim 11. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of
independent claim 11.
CONCLUSION
1 Additionally, we note that the examiner did not apply the admitted prior art in Figure 5 which
clearly teaches a "straddle-mounted spring displacement portion," but we further note that the
conventional spring is integral with the arm and not "separate from said arm" as required by the language
of independent claims 5 and 7.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007