Appeal No. 1997-0287
Application 08/263,034
prima facie case of obviousness. We consider Appellants'
arguments before deciding whether a prima facie case has been
made.
Appellants argue that "[i]n a number of places, fluid
balancing with what are termed air bearings are discussed in
Andres et al." (Br10) and that "the Andres et al. patent
specifically denigrates any fluid thrust system for
maintaining axial position against thrust, thereby teaching
away from the use of such air bearings" (Br11). The portions
of Andres pointed out by Appellants refer to fluid bearings
not to fluid thrust balancing by venting between high- and
low-pressure zones, which are the claim limitations at issue.
A "bearing" refers to a combination of stationary and rotating
members in which a shaft is supported and may rotate, where
the stationary and rotating members may support a load by
various means, such as balls, hydrodynamic fluid films, or
magnetic fields. "Thrust balancing" refers to venting between
high- and low-pressure zones and is not a bearing. Andres
says nothing about a fluid thrust balancing system; the
Swearingen patents are relied on for this feature. Therefore,
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007