Appeal No. 1998-0828
Application 08/438,091
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the prior art rejections. We have, likewise,
reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our decision,
the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief along with the
examiner’s rationale in support of the rejections and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the examiner’s answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the specification properly supports the invention of
claims 19 and 21-24. We are also of the view that the evidence
relied upon by the examiner does not support any of the prior art
rejections made by the examiner. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 19 and 21-24
under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. With respect to
independent claim 19, the examiner asserts that the claimed
invention lacks written description in the specification.
Specifically, the examiner states that the phrase “moving the air
bearing relative to the actuator arm without deflecting the air
bearing” is not supported by the original specification because
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007