Appeal 2007-2140
Application 09/892,790
Patent 5,917,679
(7)
Function of Nepela’s U-Shape
In the Supplement to Reply Brief at page 5, Appellants argue that
Nepela does not ascribe any function to the inverted U-shape. We disagree.
An “air bearing” function for the center pad is described in Nepela as
shown by Findings of Fact 28-29. Therefore, this argument fails to show
Examiner error.
(8)
Nepela Teaches Three Air Bearing Surfaces
In the Supplement to Reply Brief at page 5-7, Appellants argue that
the claims are patentable over Nepela because Nepela teaches three air
bearing surfaces rather than “not more than two separate air bearing
platforms” as required by the claims. We disagree.
The claim limitation “not more than two separate air bearing
platforms” is a limitation on the number of platforms that form the U-shape.
This limitation does not limit the total number of air bearing platforms. The
Examiner relies on a single platform 108 forming a U-shape to support the
rejection. (See Finding of Fact 26.) As discussed above, every element of
claims 21, 30-32, and 41, is found in Nepela. Therefore, this argument fails
to show Examiner error.
- 26 -
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013