Appeal No. 2001-0165
Application 08/893,220
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the rejections on appeal in
light of the arguments of the appellants and the examiner. As
a result of this review, we have determined that the applied
prior art does not establish the lack of novelty or the
obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Therefore, the
rejections of all claims on appeal are reversed. Our reasons
follow.
The following represents our factual findings with
respect to the Kawasaki reference. Kawasaki discloses, in
Figure 3, a support structure 1 with a leading edge and
trailing edge (both unnumbered). A central air bearing 15 is
formed on the support structure with a magnetic head 31 at the
rear thereof. A portion of central air bearing 15 has been
removed on each side edge at 17 and 18. It is the examiner’s
finding that Kawasaki anticipates claim 35.
Appellants argue that Kawasaki does not disclose
“removing a portion of the air bearing only at a side edge of
the air bearing surface and proximate the magnetic head to
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007