Appeal No. 2000-1569 Application 08/964,686 arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976). Only those arguments actually made by appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which appellants could have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)]. With respect to representative claim 1, the examiner finds that Kijima and Rea each teaches a magnetic disk which uses a chemical attacking agent for softening the substrate material and colloidal particles for removing the softened substrate material. The examiner notes that Kijima and Rea are silent as to calculating the surface roughness of the substrate. The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to the artisan to calculate the surface roughness in Kijima or Rea with an atomic force microscope as taught in the art [answer, pages 4-7]. Appellants argue that the examiner’s rejection fails to account for the recitation in all claims that the substrate material has a surface roughness of less than 4, 3, or 2 Angstroms [brief, page 7]. The examiner responds that the 11Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007