Appeal 2007-0685
Application 10/242,336
locate the inlet for the electrolyte between the fluidstatic bearing and the
open top surface of the workpiece.
As a final point, we note that Appellant bases no argument upon
objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected results, which
would serve to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness established by the
Examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing and the reasons well stated by
the Examiner, the Examiner’s decision rejecting the appealed claims is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
clj
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY c/o MOFO NOVA
1650 Tysons Blvd.
Suite 300
McLean, VA 22102
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Last modified: September 9, 2013