Appeal No. 2004-0653
Application No. 09/872,053
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellants
regarding those rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection (Paper No. 7, mailed June 21, 2002) and the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 12, mailed June 16, 2003) for the reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No.
11, filed January 21, 2003) and reply brief (Paper No. 13, filed
August 18, 2003) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellants' specification and claims, to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determinations which follow.
In rejecting each of independent claims 1, 13 and 18 on
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the combined teachings
of Furay and Baxter, the examiner has found that Furay discloses
(Figs. 7-9) a system comprising: a form factor disc drive having
a disc drive PCB (155), wherein the drive PCB includes a
plurality of data contact pads (col. 4, lines 66-67); and a male
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007