Appeal No. 1996-1655
Application 08/036,157
order to reduce overall height of the assembly.
Our close review of the Wanlass reference reveals instead that Wanlass’ main purpose was to
reduce overall height by employing reversed or inverted spaced load rails and wire clamps 54
(analogous to appellant’s "support pad") which assist in maintaining stiffness of the load beam (see
Wanlass, column 4, lines 49 to 54). Wanlass nowhere suggests that the load beam be thinned at the
support pad in order to reduce overall height. Instead, Wanlass uses a mounting support piece 30
which is welded or bonded to the load beam 40 at interface 50. Thus, the clamps 54 in Wanlass are
made to be the same thickness as the load beam (see Figures 2 and 4), and height is reduced by
inverting the clamps 54 around the wire as shown in Figures 6 and 7. Therefore, Wanlass has no need
for thinning the support pads (54) in order to reduce thickness since the problem has been overcome in
a different manner. We note that the only thinning possibly shown in Wanlass is in the direction of the
axis of the load beam 40, where wire clamp 54 is indented (see indent shown at number 76 in Figure
8). However, this thinning would be in a "width" direction and not a "thickness" direction as set forth in
the claims on appeal.
We also agree with appellant (Brief, page 7) that although Hatch teaches thinning of the flexure
end of the load beam, Hatch fails to teach or suggest thinning the support pad which is not in contact
with the head. We agree with appellant (Brief, page 7) that Hatch does not teach or suggest thinning
portions of the load beam other than the flexure end for any other purpose. As discussed above with
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007