Ex parte Maack

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 16, 2000

08417505 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 16, 2000)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was
not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte WERNER MAACK
____________
Appeal No. 1997-2850
Application No. 08/417,505
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before THOMAS, KRASS, and FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 2 through 8 and 11 through 20. Claims 21 through 23
have been allowed by the examiner.
The invention is directed to a magnetic head disc device.
More particularly, an additional housing is used in order to
Appeal No. 1997-2850 Page 2
Application No. 08/417,505
minimize the deviations in the adjustment of the magnetic head
position caused by stresses on the head support. The head
support is mounted in the housing and the housing is
independently secured to the head disc. The head support is
not attached directly to the head disc and this allows the
housing and the head support to be secured in separate
operations, allowing adjustment of the head support without
affecting the securing of the housing to the head disc.
Independent claim 19 is reproduced as follows:
19. A magnetic head disc device, comprising:
a magnetic head disc;
a magnetic head;
a magnetic head support carrying the magnetic head;
a housing for receiving the magnetic head support, said
housing being mounted between said head disc and said magnetic
head support;
first securing means for securing the magnetic head
support only to said housing; and
second securing means, independent of said first securing
means, for securing said housing to said head disc independent
of said first securing means and without contacting said head
support such that (i) said housing is first secured to said
head disc with said second securing means and (ii) said head
support is secured to said housing with said first securing
means and adjustable relative to said housing without effecting
the securing of the housing to the head disc.
Appeal No. 1997-2850 Page 3
Application No. 08/417,505
Appeal No. 1997-2850 Page 4
Application No. 08/417,505
Our understanding of the Sugizaki reference is based on1
an English translation prepared by the United States Patent
and Trademark Office, a copy of that translation being
attached hereto.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Narita 4,658,316 Apr. 14,
1987
Tezuka 4,872,077 Oct. 3,
1989
Japanese Patent 4-274010 Sep. 30,
19921
Sugizaki
Claims 2 through 8 and 11 through 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner cites
Sugizaki and Narita with regard to claims 2 through 8, 11
through 13 and 18 through 20, adding Tezuka with regard to
claims 14 through 17.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
With regard to independent claim 19, the examiner admits
[answer-page 5] that Sugizaki “neither discloses the housing is
mounted between the head disc and the magnetic head support nor
Appeal No. 1997-2850 Page 5
Application No. 08/417,505
a second securing means as set forth in claim 19.” In order to
supply the deficiency, the examiner relies on Narita. It is
the examiner’s contention that Narita discloses, inter alia, a
magnetic head device “having a first securing means (2) for
securing the magnetic head support (10) only to the housing
(3), and a second securing means (20) for securing the housing
(3) to the head disc (4) independent of said first securing
means (2) and without contacting said head support as recited
in claim 19 (figure 3b)” [answer-page 5]. We disagree.
A review of Narita’s Figure 3b shows a magnetic head 5 and
a rotary cylinder 4 wherein support plate 10 supports the head
5 and is attached, through fixture plate 3, to the rotary
cylinder 4 by way of securing means 2. We can agree with the
examiner that Narita discloses a first securing means for
securing a magnetic head support only to a housing but screw 20
is clearly not a “second securing means,” as claimed, because
screw 20 in Narita is merely an adjustment screw used to
pivotally move the supporting plate 10 and definitely does not
secure a housing to a head disc. In fact, the adjusting screw
20 fails to secure anything. Thus, Narita does not provide for
the admitted deficiencies of Sugizaki.
Appeal No. 1997-2850 Page 6
Application No. 08/417,505
Even assuming, arguendo, that Narita did disclose a first
and second securing means, as alleged by the examiner, it is
still not clear why the artisan would have been led to modify
Sugizaki in a manner so as to arrive at the instant claimed
subject matter nor is it clear how such a modification would be
made.
The Tezuka reference, cited by the examiner, in
combination with Sugizaki and Narita, against claims 14 through
17, fails to provide the deficiencies, noted supra, with regard
to Sugizaki and Narita.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2 through 8 and
11 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 1997-2850 Page 7
Application No. 08/417,505
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ERIC FRAHM )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK/jlb
Appeal No. 1997-2850 Page 8
Application No. 08/417,505
CORPORATE PATENT COUNSEL
U S PHILIPS CORPORATION
PATENT DEPARTMENT
580 WHITE PLAINS ROAD
TARRYTOWN, NY 10591