Appeal No. 1998-0828
Application 08/438,091
moving the air bearing deflects the structure by definition
[answer, page 4].
Appellants argue that the specification clearly
demonstrates that the microactuators move the heads via
deflection of cantilevered beams and not by deflection of the air
bearing [brief, pages 6-7]. The examiner responds that the
phrase is a contradiction in terms because if an object is moved,
it is deflected [answer, page 10].
We do not sustain this rejection of the claims. The
examiner is equating the word deflecting with the word moving.
We interpret the use of deflecting in claim 19 to mean a
structural deflecting of the air bearing. Thus, an air bearing
can be moved from one location to another location without
causing a structural deflection of the air bearing itself. When
interpreted in this manner, the specification clearly provides
support for the invention of claim 19. Therefore, this rejection
of claims 19 and 21-24 is not sustained.
We now consider the rejection of claims 19, 21, 22 and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosure of
Mori. These claims are argued as a single group. Anticipation
is established only when a single prior art reference discloses,
expressly or under the principles of inherency, each and every
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007