Appeal No. 96-0366
Application No. 07/933,893
182 USPQ 549, 551 (CCPA 1974) and Titanium Metals Corp. v.
Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 779, 227 USPQ 773, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
In light of the above analysis, we affirm the examiner’s
rejection of the appealed claims for obviousness. However,
since our rationale differs from that utilized by the examiner
and since we have relied on disclosures regarding an inherent
parameter of an admitted prior art device, we denominate our
affirmance as involving a new rejection pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b).
Which respect to the issues raised by the disclosure of
Sonoda which involves “floppy disk” technology, we agree with
appellants for the reasons set forth in their brief which are
supported by the Rule 132 declarations of record, that Sonoda
does not inherently describe a bearing curve either
overlapping or reading on a bearing ratio range as defined in
the appealed claims. Further, to the extent that the examiner
has argued based on the teachings of Sonoda, that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
flatten the peaks of a magnetic surface of a hard magnetic
disk to optimize durability and prevent excessive wear rate or
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007