Appeal No. 1999-0037 Page 9
Application No. 08/611,657
leading and trailing portions of the surfaces and have a
maximum width at a position between 1/3 and 2/3 the length of
the associated slider body. The property is that more air
with high pressure concentrates at the slider's midpoint and
does not contribute to pitch stiffness. (Spec. at 9.)
The controlling question is simply whether the
differences between the prior art and the appellant’s
invention as a whole viz., the positioning of the waists of
the longitudinal bearing surfaces and its property, are such
that the invention would have been obvious. The answer is no.
The examiner has not shown that the prior art as a whole
recognized that pitch stiffness depends on the positioning of
the waists of longitudinal bearing surfaces. Recognition of
this dependence is essential to the obviousness of conducting
experiments to decide the positioning of the longitudinal
bearing surfaces that will offer an acceptable pitch
stiffness. The examiner gives no basis for the obviousness of
the necessary experiments apart from the appellant’s
disclosure thereof.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007