Appeal 2007-0112
Application 09/892,790
1 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
2 Limited Remand
3
4 A. Statement of the case
5 The appeal is from a decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 21,
6 30-32 and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being “clearly anticipated” by
7 Nepela, U.S. Patent 5,568,981, issued 29 October 1996 based on an
8 application filed 10 April 1995.
9 Nepela is prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
10 In the answer, the Examiner states (page 4):
11 Note figure 5c. NEPELA et al shows a negative pressure
12 slider with a U-shaped air bearing platform (108) defining a
13 negative pressure cavity (not numbered—the area between the
14 two rear extending legs of the U), the U-shaped air bearing
15 platform having a cross rail portion (not numbered) and not
16 more than two separate air bearing platforms (not numbered—
17 the rear extending legs) which terminate before the rear edge of
18 the slider, the not more than two separate air bearing platforms
19 have side wall portions (not numbered), and a centered rear air
20 bearing platform (120) which mounts a transducer.
21
22 B. Discussion
23 We start out with the observation that it is not readily apparent to us
24 how claims 21, 30-32 and 41 are “clearly anticipated” by Nepela. Nor are
25 we sure if there is a difference is between “clearly anticipated” and
26 “anticipated.”
27 The Examiner, however, believes the claims on appeal are anticipated.
28 The Examiner no doubt is considerably more knowledgeable about the art
29 than we are. Furthermore, because of that knowledge, the Examiner may
30 have been inclined to make justified assumptions about the scope and
31 content of Nepela which we are unable to appreciate.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013