Appeal No. 97-1647 Page 19
Application No. 08/321,255
sliding on the disk since it is shown that the fly height is
lower at slower speeds of rotation.” (Id.)
In response, the appellants assert, “the Examiner has
incorrectly interpreted the Buettner et al. patent as teaching
fly height adjustment at slow speeds, instead of its actual
teaching of calibrating or monitoring fly height changes as a
result of slow speeds. (Appeal Br. at 8.)
We find that the examiner failed to show that Owe,
Murata, Fechner, and Buettner teach or would have suggested
the invention of claims 13 and 16. At the outset we note the
great breadth of claims 13 and 16. Claim 13 recites the step
of “adjusting fly height” without limiting the adjusting to
the use of a laser to heat a flexure arm to achieve a desired
bend therein and, thus, a desired fly height. Claim 16
recites “a heating device which heats the flexure arm” without
specifying that the heating deforms the flexure arm to achieve
a desired bend therein and, thus, a desired fly height.
Claims are not interpreted in a vacuum, however, but are part
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007