Appeal No. 98-1529 Page 4
Application No. 08/446,375
perspective, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood from the specification that the treatment of the
component of the enclosed hard disk drive could include coating
the component of the hard disk enclosure with a porous layer,
whereupon the micro holes would originate in the coating.
Thus, we cannot agree with the examiner that the appellants’
were not in possession of this feature of the invention when
the application was filed.
This rejection is not sustained.
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
The examiner finds two problems with the language of claim
6. The first is that the phrase “treating a surface” is
unclear. He has not, however, provided reasons why this is the
case, and we can find none. Second, the examiner contends that
whereas the claim recites that forming the micro holes
increases the size of the treated surface, it actually is
decreased. It is clear to us, however, that such is not the
case. Considered in the light of the specification, it is
clear that “area size” and “surface” should be interpreted as
applying to the total exposed area, including both the planar
surface and the inner surfaces of the micro holes.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007