Ex parte FAHIMI et al. - Page 2




             Appeal No. 1998-3355                                                                                     
             Application No. 08/665,167                                                                               


                                                  BACKGROUND                                                          

                    The appellants’ invention relates to a tape bearing surface with reduced tape                     
             contact and method of making same.  An understanding of the invention can be derived                     
             from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below.                                          
                    1.     A tape bearing surface for a tape, the tape having a boundary layer of                     
                    air entrapped between the tape and the bearing surface upon movement of                           
                    the tape, a flying height above the surface and a cross-web tension, the tape                     
                    bearing surface comprising a stationary tape surface piece having a top                           
                    surface with a longitudinal axis  defining a tape path and a lateral axis                         
                    perpendicular to the longitudinal axis, the top surface defining a convex                         
                    shape extending along the lateral axis having at least two distinct radii, the                    
                    respective radii being such as to minimize cross-web tension while                                
                    minimizing friction and maintaining a predetermined flying height.                                
                    The prior art reference of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                    
             appealed claims is:                                                                                      
             Eaton et al. (Eaton)                      5,282,105                   Jan. 25, 1994                      
                    Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being                     
             anticipated by Eaton.  Claims 4, 5, 8, 10, and 13-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                      
             § 103 as being unpatentable over Eaton.                                                                  
                    Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the                 
             appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the                                






                                                          2                                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007