Appeal No. 97-1647 Page 20
Application No. 08/321,255
of and are read in light of the specification. Slimfold Mfg.
Co. v. Kinkead Indus., Inc., 810 F.2d 1113, 1116, 1 USPQ2d
1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
With this in mind, we interpret claim 13 as rotating the
disc at a rate of rotation which is less than a normal minimum
operating rate during the step of adjusting fly height.
Similarly, we interpret claim 16 as rotating the disc at a
rate of rotation which is less than a normal minimum operating
rate during the heating of the flexure arm. Comparison of the
claim language to Owe, Murata, Fechner, and Buettner evidences
that the references neither teach nor would have suggested
these chronological relations.
As aforementioned, the examiner admits that Owe in view
of Murata in view of Fechner does not disclose rotating the
disc at a slower speed to calibrate the flexure arm, i.e., to
heat the flexure arm to adjust fly height. As explained in
our consideration of claims 2 and 3, Buettner does not remedy
this defect. We incorporate this explanation by reference
thereto.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007