Ex Parte ZHAO et al - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2003-0267                                                        
          Application 09/427,229                                                      


                                   THE INVENTION                                      
               The subject matter on appeal relates to “an actuator of a              
          disc drive” (specification, page 1).  Representative claim 1                
          reads as follows:                                                           
               1. An actuator assembly for a disc drive comprising:                   
               a main body which includes a pivoting portion;                         
               an actuator arm attached to the main body;                             
               a yoke attached to the main body, the yoke having a bonding            
          surface having a plurality of grooves therein; and                          
               a voice coil bonded to the yoke.                                       
                                   THE REJECTION                                      
               Claims 1, 3 and 7 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.            
          § 102(b) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,734,528 to               
          Jabbari et al. (Jabbari).                                                   
               Attention is directed to the brief (Paper No. 16) and answer           
          (Paper No. 17) for the respective positions of the appellants and           
          examiner regarding the merits of this rejection.2                           

               2 In the final rejection (Paper No. 9), the statutory basis            
          for the rejection of claims 1, 3 and 7 through 10 over Jabbari              
          was 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  The record indicates that the examiner             
          (1) changed the statutory basis in the answer to 35 U.S.C.                  
          § 102(b) as a result of the amendment of claims 1 and 7 through             
          10 subsequent to final rejection, and (2) implicitly forewarned             
          the appellants of the change in the advisory action dated                   
          February 4, 2002 (Paper No. 11).  Given the argument on the                 
          merits advanced in the brief, it is apparent that the appellants            
          have not been prejudiced by the switch in statutory basis.                  
          Claims 1, 3 and 7 through 10 also stood rejected under 35 U.S.C.            
          § 112, second paragraph, in the final rejection.  As this                   
          rejection has not been restated in the answer, we assume that it            
          has been withdrawn by the examiner (see Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ              
                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007