Appeal 2007-2140
Application 09/892,790
Patent 5,917,679
(5)
Presence of Other Air Bearing Surfaces
In the Third Reply Brief at pages 25-26, Appellants argue that the
presence of other air bearing surfaces is irrelevant to the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection. We agree.
However, this point was not used by the Examiner to support the
rejection. Rather, as discussed above, every element of claims 21, 30-32,
and 41, is found in Nepela. Therefore, this argument fails to show Examiner
error.
(6)
Presence of Other Air Bearing Surfaces
In the Supplement to Reply Brief at pages 3-5, Appellants argue that
Nepela does not expressly teach a negative pressure cavity on said principal
surface. We disagree.
This element is found in Nepela as shown by Findings of Fact 28-29.
Therefore, this argument fails to show Examiner error.
- 25 -
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013