Ex Parte Pottebaum et al - Page 2

                Appeal 2007-0683                                                                             
                Application 10/121,772                                                                       

                      Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to an actuator assembly for a                  
                disc drive in which first and second actuator arm assemblies project from the                
                actuator assembly body portion.  Each of the actuator arm assemblies has a                   
                distal end with a different mechanically configured mounting portion to                      
                which first and second flexure assemblies are mounted.  The differing                        
                mechanical configurations are selected to provide the flexure arm assemblies                 
                with different mechanical resonance characteristics.  (Specification 3).                     
                      Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and it reads as follows:                      
                       1. An actuator assembly, comprising:                                                  
                a body portion;                                                                              
                      first and second actuator arm assemblies depending at proximal ends                    
                thereof from the body portion and defining mounting portions at distal ends                  
                thereof, the actuator arm assemblies substantially identical except for                      
                different mechanically configured mounting portions; and                                     
                      first and second substantially identical flexure assemblies attached to                
                the mounting portions.                                                                       
                      The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show                      
                unpatentability:                                                                             
                Nakanishi                      US 5,014,142             May 7, 1991                         
                Kaneko                         US 5,956,210             Sep. 21, 1999                       
                      Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                   
                § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nakanishi.  Claims 2-5, 11, 14-18, 21, and                  
                22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).  As evidence of obviousness, the                 
                Examiner offers Nakanishi alone with respect to claims 4, 5, 8, 17, 18, and                  
                22, and adds Kaneko to Nakanishi with respect to claims 2, 3, 11, 14-16, and                 


                                                     2                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013