Appeal No. 96-1603
Application 08/057,989
No. 13) and the appellant’s brief (Paper No. 12) and reply
brief
(Paper No 15) for the full exposition thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the appellant’s invention as
described in the specification, the appealed claims, the prior
applied by the examiner, and the respective positions advanced
by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of this
review, we have made the determinations which follow.
We turn initially to the examiner’s rejection of claims
13 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. The
examiner states that there is no support in the original
disclosure for the recitation in claim 13 of a hydrostatic
bearing, and thus relies on the “written description”
requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. The examiner
also states that it is unclear how the hydrostatic bearing
recited in claim 13 is constructed and how the slides are
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007