Appeal No. 1996-1309
Application 08/053,174
Claims 29 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Kato and Doerner. In the
reply brief, Appellants argue that Doerner's teaching in
column 1, lines 58 through 61, that the disk must be extremely
smooth is a teaching away from combining the teachings of
Doerner with Kato. We agree. We fail to find any reason to
modify Kato with Doerner's teaching when Doerner is expressly
teaching that the disk surfaces must be extremely smooth,
which is counter to Kato's teaching to increase the roughness
of a portion of the disk.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and claims
22, 23 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed; however, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 24, 25 and 27
through 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007