Appeal No. 2002-1234
Application No. 09/546,466
Inasmuch as the two rejections of record involve the importation of limitations from the
specification into the claim due to the presence of a means-plus-function limitation in the claim, we
will consider the two rejections of claim 15 together.
According to the examiner (answer, page 5), the double patenting rejection applies because:
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the
patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming
common subject matter, as follows, for instance:
An actuator assembly for a disc drive, wherein the disc drive has a magnet
assembly which interacts with the actuator assembly to position the actuator
assembly, the actuator assembly comprising an E-block supported by the disc drive,
an electrical coil supported by the E-block and disposed adjacent the magnet
assembly, and means for transferring heat from the electrical coil to the E-block.
With respect to the anticipation rejection, the examiner states (answer, page 6) that “Sentoda [sic,
Sendoda] teaches an actuator assembly for a disc drive, wherein the disc drive has a magnet
assembly (includes 54) which interacts with the actuator assembly to position the actuator assembly,
the actuator assembly comprising an E-block (includes 53) supported by the disc drive, an electrical
coil (55) supported by the E-block and disposed adjacent the magnet assembly, and means for
transferring heat (includes 1 in at least an equivalent structural sense) from the electrical coil to the
E-block . . . .”
Appellants argue (brief, pages 12 and 13) that the double patenting rejection is inappropriate
because extension of the subject application beyond the life of the parent can not occur because “the
patent terms for both the parent ‘477 patent and a patent issuing from the present application will
both run for 20 years from the filing date of the parent.”
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007