Appeal No. 2000-1233
Application No. 09/040,532
Claims 2 through 6 and 20 through 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cheng in view of Watanabe and either Kosugi or Christiaens.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Malissin in
view of Watanabe and either Kosugi or Christiaens in further view of Tokunaga.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheng in view
of Watanabe and either Kosugi or Christiaens in further view of Tokunaga.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Malissin in
view of Watanabe and either Kosugi or Christiaens in further view of either Sidey or Williams.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cheng in view
of Watanabe and either Kosugi or Christiaens in further view of either Sidey or Williams.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 11, 12 and 15) and the answer (paper number
14) for the respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and we will reverse the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 2 through 8 and 20 through 25.
According to the examiner (answer, pages 4 and 5), Malissin and Cheng both disclose all of
the claimed subject matter set forth in claims 2 through 6 and 20 through 25 except for a rotary air
bearing and a damping means. For a damping means, the examiner turns to Watanabe which
discloses (column 1, lines 37 through 40; Figures 3 and 4) the use of four liquid-filled dampers 5 for
dampening the vibrations of a deck base 6 which supports disk 1. For a rotary air bearing, the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007