Appeal No. 2003-0065
Application 09/491,284
can be a pad portion in addition to the leading V-shaped pad
portion. The rejection of claims 13 and 19 is sustained.
Obviousness - Brezoczky and Fukuoka
The examiner finds that Brezoczky shows a V-shaped pad but
does not show a U-shaped, parabolic-shaped, or hyperbolic-shaped
pad. The examiner finds that Fukuoka shows a U-shaped pad in
Fig. 7 and it states in column 10, lines 30-32 that the pad may
be "a parabola, a circle or an oval." The examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to re-shape the pad in Brezoczky
to be different shapes as taught by Fukuoka to "permit the
sliding characteristics of the pad to be altered to the specific
needs of various dick [sic] drives" (FR3; EA5) and because "[n]o
unobvious result is seen in changing the shape of the pad of
Brezoczky" (FR3; EA5).
Claim 3
Although the rejection of parent claim 1 as anticipated by
Brezoczky has been reversed, this is one of the rare situations
where the added reference to Fukuoka cures the deficiencies in
the rejection of the parent claim.
Appellants argue Brezoczky does not teach or suggest a
U-shape and if Brezoczky was modified to have a U-shape it is
unclear how read/write head 17 could be properly formed on
surface 58 which would be curved (Br12).
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007