Appeal No. 2003-0785
Application 09/457,816
disclosed by appellants as suitable for their invention. Lambert
is not from the disc drive art, and Lambert provides no
motivation to use an LCP in a disc drive assembly. Thus, we
agree with appellants that there is no motivation within the
applied prior art to combine their respective teachings to arrive
at the claimed invention.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection of
claim 1, but we have not sustained the examiner’s rejection of
claims 2-12 and 15. Therefore, the decision of the examiner
rejecting claims 1-12 and 15 is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
)
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007