Appeal No. 96-0643
Application 08/103,677
3. Obviousness of Claims 7-10
Claims 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over admitted prior art
Figure 8B in view of admitted prior art Figure 7 as applied to Claims 1-2, and further in view of Liu.
The rejection of Claims 7-10 relies on the rationale, rejected above, applied to Claims 1-2. Therefore,
we will not sustain this rejection.
4. Obviousness of Claim 13
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over admitted prior art Figure
8B in view of admitted prior art Figure 7 as applied to Claims 1-2, and further in view of Suzuki. The
examiner’s rejection of Claim 13 relies on the rationale, rejected above, applied to Claims 1-2.
Therefore, we will not sustain this rejection.
5. Obviousness of Claims 4-5 and 12
Claims 4-5 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over admitted prior
art Figure 8B in view of Liu. The examiner concedes that the admitted prior art does not show a
bearing portion interposed between coplanar portions of the head holding portion and the base. For
that, the examiner relies on Liu.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007