Appeal No. 98-1447
Application 08/385,356
assist in having the pedestal borne practically frictionlessly
by the base.
Simply stated, a review of the overall teachings of
Unterberger (Fig. 1) and Blizard (Fig. 6) does not reveal to
us a suggestion for the content of claims 2 and 17, in
particular. In our opinion, one having ordinary skill in the
art would not have derived from the applied teachings,
assessed alone and in combination, any suggestion for a film
of liquid acting between an annular pedestal bottom surface
and an annular base top surface for bearing or supporting the
pedestal.
In summary, this panel of the board has affirmed the
rejection of claim 1, but has reversed the rejection of claims
2 through 8 and 17 through 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Unterberger in view of Blizard.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007