Appeal No. 1996-1655
Application 08/036,157
5).
Our careful review of the record before us leads us to the conclusion that neither reference
provides sufficient motivation for making such a modification to the support pad of the load beam (i.e.,
thinning). We find that the references actually teach away from thinning the support pad,
since both Hatch and Wanlass are concerned with providing stiffness and support at the base plate end
and flexibility at the flexure end which contains the head, while reducing the overall height of the head
assembly by using a load beam and inverted support pad of unitary thickness in combination with a
separate support or mounting plate to provide stiffness.
We find that Wanlass does not teach or suggest thinning the support pad, and that to do so
would not have been obvious in light of the teachings or reasonable suggestions of the reference.
Figures 5 and 6 of the reference, relied upon by the examiner, do not show this feature. The examiner
admits that this feature is not shown in Wanlass, and states that it would have been obvious without
pointing to any portion of Wanlass to support such a conclusion. We find that there is no reasonable
teaching or suggestion in Wanlass which would have led the artisan to thin the load beam support pad in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007