Appeal No. 1996-1655
Application 08/036,157
respect to Wanlass, Hatch (see Figures 3, 4, and 5) teaches a stiffening plate (46) which is separate
from the load beam (10) and bonded together at boss (48) wherein the support pad portion (54) has a
cross-sectional profile as shown in Figure 5B. Accordingly, Hatch, like Wanlass, teaches away from
the invention in that Hatch reduces overall assembly height by forming an inverted flange 54 to protect
the wires 92.
Representative claim 1 calls for a load beam which is integral with a thinned wire support pad at
a base plate end. Both Hatch and Wanlass pertain to load beams having the same thickness as the wire
support pad, and use a separate stiffening plate or mounting section to secure the load beam to an arm
of the head assembly. The examiner has presented no plausible motivation from the references as to
why it would have been obvious to thin the load beam at the wire support
pad. Thus, we are in agreement with appellant that "[t]here is no motivation or suggestion in either
reference to partially thin the pad" as claimed (Reply Brief, page 5), and we cannot sustain the
examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We agree with the examiner that both Hatch and Wanlass teach the recited feature of the
support pad having a "well-radiused convex curvature cross-sectional profile." We agree with
examiner’s argument (Answer, pages 5 to 6) that although the support pad perimeter portion of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007