Appeal No. 2006-2457
Application No. 10/358,831
According to appellants, the disclosure is enabling. Appellants first note
that the spring arms can be connected or coupled in any known manner and all
known attachment methods are equally acceptable [id.]. Appellants also note
that the “diagrammatic” illustrations in the disclosure are sufficient since they
graphically explain the arrangement of parts. Appellants cite two references to
show how springs -- in particular flat springs -- are conventionally illustrated [see
ev. app.]. In view of this evidence, appellants conclude that the skilled artisan
would know exactly what was illustrated in the drawings [brief, page 9]. Although
appellants concede that the references do not show what specific materials are
used to construct the springs nor describe the coupling at the ends, appellants
contend that such attachment features and material selections are nevertheless
well known to skilled artisans [id.]. According to appellants, the present
application did not discuss specific coupling methods between the actuation
mechanism’s anchor, spring member, and suspension because the skilled
artisan would know how to couple these items together [id.].
The examiner responds that the lack of disclosure pertaining to the spring
arms and ends of the spring members renders the disclosure non-enabling,
particularly since the claimed invention is totally different in operation and
structure from the prior art (i.e., no pure rotational mechanism exists in the
claimed invention for moving the head suspension) [answer, pages 4 and 5].
The examiner also contends that appellants’ two cited references are insufficient
since (1) no basis allegedly exists in the specification that the springs are flat
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007