Appeal No. 2004-0478
Application No. 09/768,976
Appellants also argue that Arya fails to teach "slider 48
including a pad that contacts disk 138." The Examiner rebuts
this at pages 7-8 of the answer by pointing out that the Jacques
patent teaches this feature and the rejection based on Arya in
view of Jacques is proper. We have fully reviewed the record
before us and can find no rejection of claim 30 based on the
combination of Arya and Jacques. We only find a rejection based
on Arya alone and we find that Arya fails to teach the claimed
feature of "a pad that extends below the air bearing surface."
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
It should be noted that our decision does not preclude the
Examiner from rejecting this claim based on a combination of Arya
and Jacques should the Examiner deem such a rejection to be
appropriate.
X. Whether the Rejection of Claims 31-34 Under
35 U.S.C. § 102 is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Arya does not fully meet the invention as
recited in claims 31-34. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to independent claim 31, Appellants argue at
page 12 of the brief by referring back to their arguments with
respect to claim 20. We find that this argument does not
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007