Appeal No. 1997-3965
Application No. 08/389,069
Appellant argues (Brief, pages 8-14) that Toensing does
not disclose the angular relationship between the longitudinal
axis of the slider body and the tangent of an intermediate
track. Appellant contends (Brief, pages 9-11, and Reply
Brief, pages
4-5) that without a discussion in Toensing as to the angular
relationship, the other references applied by the examiner
evidence that Toensing cannot be interpreted to include the
claimed relationship. However, the additional references
disclose structures that differ significantly from Toensing's.
On the other hand, appellant discloses (Specification, page 2,
lines 22-28) a prior art structure similar to that shown by
Toensing's figure 3 and admits that "[c]onventionally, . . .
when the floating slider is positioned on an intermediate
track the angle the rails on the floating slider form with the
tangent to the radially intermediate track is zero." Thus,
appellant's admissions appear to be more relevant extrinsic
evidence as to what Toensing inherently discloses.
Further, appellant asserts (Brief, pages 11-14) that one
cannot infer any relationship from the drawings of Toensing
unless "one of ordinary skill in the art would have known the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007