Appeal No. 2002-1240
Application 09/247,550
Appellants argue that Iida does not disclose or teach the
range of values for the gap as set forth in the independent and
dependent claims of this application. See page 6 of the brief.
Appellants further point out that Iida discloses a gap size in
which flutter reduction is optimized at about 3 mm and some
possible value less than 3 mm. Appellants argue that there is no
disclosure or teaching in Iida of a gap size in the range greater
than 0.1 mm to not greater than 0.6 mm. See page 7 of the brief.
We note that independent claim 1 recites:
wherein a gap between the end face of the outer periphery of
said magnetic disc and the shroud is set in a range which is
greater than 0.1 mm but not greater than 0.6 mm.
Furthermore, we note that claims 2, 6, 7, 11 and 12 are dependent
on claim 1 and thereby include the above limitation as well.
The Examiner argues that Iida does teach the disc-shroud gap
of a range which is greater than 0.1 mm but not greater than 0.6
mm in column 4, lines 46 through 64. See page 3 of the
Examiner’s answer. The Examiner argues that Iida teaches that
the disc-shroud gap is below 3 mm and thereby is teaching an
overlapping range. See page 7 of the Examiner’s answer.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007