Appeal No. 1998-0206
Application No. 08/550,514
with particular emphasis at column 7, lines 25 through 51, that solder contact pads 70 on slider 16
facilitate mechanical and electrical connection of slider 16 to conductive layer 44 of suspension 40, by
means of solder balls 80, effectively grounding transducer 13 (Figure 2). The examiner offers
insufficient explanation as to how the requirements of independent Claims 1 and 6 may be rendered
obvious in view of the two disclosures.
The second problem with the rejection is that the motivation for replacing “bonded” with
“unbonded” conductors appears to be an unfounded assertion. There is no evidence of record -- such
as additional references -- to serve as a basis for the asserted facts. Finally, even if the artisan would
have been motivated to “reduce the resistivity of the conductors” and “to reduce the thickness of the
head assembly,” there is insufficient evidence for concluding that the prior art, as represented by the
disclosures of Matsuzaki and Ainslie, would have led the artisan to the claimed invention. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Section 103 rejection of Claims 1-16.
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007