Appeal No. 2003-0065
Application 09/491,284
uniform shape. We treat the rejection of a dependent claim as
including an implicit rejection of the claim from which it
depends. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 4.
Claims 14 and 15
Claim 14 is taken as representative.
Appellants argue that claim 14 recites "the pad includes a
U-shaped portion ... and a wide part of the U-shaped portion is
spaced from the leading edge," which distinguishes over Brezoczky
for this reason as well as the reasons mentioned for claims 3
and 13 (Br12).
Appellants do not argue why the examiner erred in the
rejection which includes Fukuoka and, in fact, appellants do not
mention Fukuoka at all. The rejection must be sustained for this
reason. In addition, we agree with the examiner that Fig. 7 of
Fukuoka teaches a U-shaped surface which would have suggested to
one skilled in the art of slider design modifying the triangular
thin sheet 52 in Fig. 5 of Brezoczky to have a U-shape. The wide
part of the U-shaped surface in Fukuoka is spaced from the
leading edge. The rejection of claims 14 and 15 is sustained.
- 14 -
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007