Appeal No. 2003-0065
Application 09/491,284
teaches that the contact surface can have a parabolic shape
(col. 10, lines 30-32) and that it would been obvious to one
skilled in the art to modify the pad and slider in Brezoczky to
have a parabolic shape in view of this teaching. Appellants'
reference to claim 13 is not relevant to this rejection. The
rejection of claims 20 and 21 is sustained.
Claim 22
Appellants argue that "[c]laim 21 [sic, 22] recites 'the
wide part of the parabolic-shaped portion is spaced from the
trailing edge'" (Br13), which distinguishes over Brezoczky for
this reason as well as the reasons mentioned for claims 20 and 21
(Br13).
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, since Fukuoka shows the wide part of the
curved portion in Fig. 7 spaced from the trailing edge, i.e.,
only the front part of the surface is curved and the sides have a
straight portion, it would have been obvious to make the wide
part of a parabolic-shaped portion taught by Fukuoka spaced from
the trailing edge. The rejection of claim 22 is sustained.
- 16 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007