Appeal No. 98-0599
Application 08/434,029
the recess portion has a diameter, and the diameter
of the recess portion is smaller than the diameter
of the annular rib.
Opinion
We affirm the rejection of claims 31-34 and 36 and
reverse the rejection of claim 35.
Our affirmance of the prior art rejection is based only
on the arguments presented by appellants in their briefs.
Arguments not raised in the briefs are not before us, are not
at issue, and are considered as waived.
The rejection of claims 31-34 and 36
Central to this rejection is the examiner’s conclusion
that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in
the art, in light of Kato’s multi-member disk substrate
including the disk 16 and the control ring 19, to form a
single-piece substrate as is claimed by the appellant. 2
Citing Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893), the
examiner stated in the final Office action (Paper No. 24, at
4):
2The examiner made clear his view that in the context
of the rejection, the flange 18 of Kato is not regarded as a
part of the substrate. (Answer at page 9).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007