Appeal No. 2002-1240
Application 09/247,550
we note that column 4, lines 46 through 64, does recite that the
distance D is less than 3 mm. However, this must be read in the
context of figure 6 which shows that this language does not mean
substantially less than 3 mm but more or less in the range of 1.5
to 3 mm. We fail to find that one of ordinary skill in the art
would recognize that the disc-shroud gap would be in any way in
the range of .1 mm to .6 mm which is substantially less than
3 mm. Therefore, we find that Iida does not anticipate the
Appellants’ claimed invention as recited in claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11
and 12.
We now will consider the rejection of claims 2 through 5, 7
through 10 and 12 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
unpatentable over Iida. We note that claims 2, 6, 7, 11 and 12
are dependent on claim 1 and thereby contain the above limitation
of claim 1 which we have discussed. We note that claim 3 is an
independent claim with claims 8 and 13 dependent upon claim 3.
Claim 3 recites “a range which is greater than 0.1 mm but not
greater than 0.6 mm.” We note that claim 4 is an independent
claim in which claims 9 and 14 are dependent thereon. Claim 4
recites “a range which is greater than 0.1 mm but not greater
than 0.4 mm.”
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007