Appeal No. 2000-1922
Application No. 08/806,494
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal,
the rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of
obviousness relied upon by the Examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, Appellants’ arguments
set forth in the Brief along with the Examiner’s rationale in
support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal set forth in
the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the
particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art the obviousness of the invention as set forth in
claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to independent claims 1 and 5, the Examiner
proposes to modify the disk drive bearing assembly disclosure of
Krum. According to the Examiner ((Answer, page 6), Krum
discloses the claimed invention except that Krum’s retention
disc (identified as washer seal 90 by the Examiner) lacks “a
flange, disposed at the inner diameter of the retention
disc,...” as claimed. To address this deficiency, the Examiner
turns to Yasui which describes a flanged retention disc for a
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007