Appeal 2008-0088
Application 10/662,426
We affirm the decision of the Primary Examiner.
Claim 1 illustrates Appellants’ invention of a cleaning apparatus
comprising a burnishing object, and is representative of the claims on
appeal:
1. A cleaning apparatus comprising a burnishing object positioned
over or under a disk and extending adjacent a surface of the disk at an angle
that is offset from a line passing through the center of the disk, and a device
that (a) rotates the burnishing object to change the offset angle of the
burnishing object and (b) translates the burnishing object relative to the disk
to advance a position of a contact of the burnishing object across the surface
of the disk,
wherein the device changes the offset angle of the burnishing object
and translates the burnishing object while cleaning the disk.
The Examiner relies upon the evidence in this reference (Answer 2):
Tateyama 5,375,291 Dec. 27, 1994
Appellants request review of the following grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal (Br. 7):
Claims 1, 2, and 4 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Tateyama (Answer 3); and
Claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Tateyama
(id. 4).
Appellants argue claim 1 with respect to the first ground of rejection
and argue the claims of the second ground as a group. Br. 10-11 and 11-12.
Thus, we decide this appeal based on claims 1 and 10 as representative of
the grounds of rejection and Appellants’ groupings of claims. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2006).
The issues in this appeal are whether the Examiner has carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case in each of the grounds of rejection
advanced on appeal.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013