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
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007