Ex Parte Lee et al - Page 4

                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