Appeal No. 96-2181
Application No. 07/963,440
The Examiner recites “Hinlein shows (in Figures 4,
6, 7 and 10) an improved suspension load beam (14) having a
load dimple (17) bearing in direct engagement with the slider
(see Figure 4) and ...” (Answer at pages 5 and 6).
In their reply brief (top of page 2), Appellants
argue:
The Examiner’s analysis of Hinlein is incorrect.
Hinlein does not teach a suspension load beam having
a load dimple bearing in direct engagement with the
slider as recited in each of the independent claims
1, 11 and 19.
In the detachable load beam slider arm 14
disclose[d] by Hinlein, a magnetic head 12 is secured to a
slider 16 by a gimbal mechanism 17. Column 4, lines 14-19.
The magnetic head 12 is allowed to move on the
gimbal 17. Column 5, lines 26-27. The gimbal 17 is not
the load dimple as claimed in the present application.
[Emphasis added.]
Reviewing Appellants’ citations to Hinlein, and
noting corresponding Figure 4, we see that gimbal 17 is indeed
located between slider 16 and magnetic head 12 (unlabeled in
this figure). Therefore gimbal 17 is separate from the load
beam and does not meet the claim limitation of the load
beam’s dimple (claim language--”load beam including a load
dimple”) being in direct engagement with the slider.
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007