Appeal No. 1996-1309
Application 08/053,174
the rejection of these claims but we will reverse the rejec-
tion of the remaining claims on appeal for the reasons set
forth infra.
Turning first to the rejection of claim 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102, Appellants point out on page 6 of the brief
that claim 21 expressly sets forth a disk drive which includes
a data storage region having a substantially smooth surface
"when a selected amount of lift is generated upon relative
movement of said slider in said data storage region . . ." and
an idling region having a plurality of depressions therein
"wherein an amount of lift greater than the selected amount of
lift is generated upon relative movement of said slider in
said idling region, resulting in a greater separation between
said transducer head and said first annular surface within
said idling region."
Appellants argue on page 7 that Kato alone does not anticipate
that the amount of lift generated within the data storage
region is less than the amount of lift generated in the idle
region.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007