Appeal No. 2004-0478
Application No. 09/768,976
overcome the Examiner's prima facie showing of anticipation as
discussed above with respect to claims 1 and 24.
Appellants also argue that Arya fails to teach "a plurality
of pads, wherein . . . the pads contact the storage disk." The
Examiner rebuts this at pages 7-8 of the answer by pointing out
that the Jacques patent teaches this feature and the rejection
based on Arya in view of Jacques is proper. We have fully
reviewed the record before us and can find no rejection of claim
31 based on the combination of Arya and Jacques. We only find a
rejection based on Arya alone and we find that Arya fails to
teach the claimed feature of "a plurality of pads, . . . and the
pads contact the storage disk."
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
It should be noted that our decision does not preclude the
Examiner from rejecting this claim based on a combination of Arya
and Jacques should the Examiner deem such a rejection to be
appropriate.
XI. Whether the Rejection of Claim 35 Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
is proper?
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the disclosure of Arya does not fully meet the invention as
recited in claim 35. Accordingly, we reverse.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007