Appeal No. 1996-1309
Application 08/053,174
On page 9 of the answer, the Examiner argues that
Figure 5 of Samoto shows a conventional disk wherein abrasive
tape was used to create a rough surface so that the slider
would not stick to the disk surface. The Examiner argues that
Samoto shows a plurality of indentations caused by the
abrasive tape which would run in any direction based on the
indentation's random placement by the abrasive tape.
We note that claim 28 recites not a random placement
of indentations but a particular geometry of the indentations.
In particular, claim 28 recites said plurality of depressions
comprising a plurality of indentations running substantially
transverse to the direction of rotation of said first annular
surface. We fail to find that the random placement of the
indentations by the abrasive tape as taught by Samoto meets
this limitation.
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Kato and Ono. Appellants argue that
Ono does not suggest Appellants' claimed limitation of a
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007