Appeal 2006-3069
Application 10/661,273
Appellants contend that none of the relied-upon references teach or
suggest establishing the distance between their respective motion limiting
elements and respective suspension assemblies such that when the
suspension assemblies move during shock, the air bearing surface (ABS) is
not disrupted, substantially or otherwise (Br 5).
In particular, Appellants argue that neither Kuroda nor Onda
precludes the possibility of the air bearing surface being disrupted when
their respective suspension assemblies move during [physical] shock to the
hard drive. Thus, Appellants conclude that neither Kuroda nor Onda
inherently teaches the recited functional language of not disrupting the air
bearing surface, substantially or otherwise (id.).
The Examiner disagrees. In particular, the Examiner explains how the
functional language argued by Appellants reads on each of the Kuroda and
Onda references, and also how the disputed functional language is being
construed in light of Appellants’ Specification (Answer 11-13).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants essentially restate the argument
presented in the Brief. Appellants again contend that the Examiner has failed
to show that either Kuroda or Onda inherently teaches the recited functional
language (Reply Br. 1-4).
After carefully considering all of the evidence before us, we find it
unnecessary to reach the functional language argued by Appellants to affirm
the Examiner on this record. In particular, we note that our reviewing court
has determined that the absence of a disclosure relating to function does not
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013