Appeal No. 2001-1268
Application No. 09/100,698
and second heights to the first height is approximately 1:10.
In order to make it clear to readers of any patent which
should issue from this application what the corresponding and
equivalent structure for the claimed “...means for reducing
stiction...,” comprises, we recommend to appellants and the
examiner that appellants amend the specification, consistent with
this decision and MPEP 2181, to make clear the structure that
corresponds to the stiction reducing means. This would provide
notice to the public as to the scope of instant claim 3.
Since we agree with appellants anent the corresponding
structure identified as the structure shown in Figures 4-3, 5-1
and 5-2, and the attendant descriptions thereof, e.g., the 1:10
ratio described at page 10, lines 16-20, the claimed element
“stiction reduction means for reducing stiction between the
slider and the rotatable disc” shall be construed to cover this
corresponding structure and equivalents thereof.
Since neither Best nor Okada discloses what we have held to
be structure corresponding to the claimed “stiction reduction
means for reducing stiction between the slider and the rotatable
disc,” we will not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. 102(b).
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007