Appeal 2008-0088
Application 10/662,426
disclosed in Specification ¶ 0030. See, e.g., In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-
22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
We find Tateyama would have described to one skilled in this art two
embodiments of a device for cleaning a disk illustrated in Figs. 1, 2, 8, and
9. The device has a burnishing object which is either brush material 42
wound around shaft 44 or disk brush 202 of the same material. Each of
brushes 42 and 202 can be rotated in the direction θ by respective
mechanisms 41 and 9, and are contacted with the top surface of the spinning
disk. We find one skilled in this art would infer from the illustrated position
of the respective mechanisms and the brushes in Figs. 1 and 8 that, during
the cleaning operation, the brushes are positioned over the disk, extending
adjacent a surface at an offset angle to the center line thereof, and can be
rotated by the mechanisms to change the offset angle, thus translating the
brushes by advancing the brushes from the first position of contact to a
second position of contact. Tateyama, e.g., col. 2, ll. 4-5, col. 3, l. 62, to col.
4, l. 29, col. 5, ll. 23-40, col. 7, ll. 5-22, col. 8, ll. 10-28.
Accordingly, on this record, we agree with the Examiner that prima
facie, as a matter of fact, Tateyama describes to one skilled in this art a
cleaning device that meets each and every limitation of the claimed cleaning
device encompassed by claim 1, arranged as required therein, as we
interpreted this claim 1. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477,
44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and cases cited therein.
We are not persuaded otherwise by Appellants’ contentions. We
determined that there is no limitation on the course of translation of the
burnishing object across the disk specified in claim 1. In this respect,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013