Appeal No. 1998-0596
Application 08/259,370
2
transducer. This structural characteristic has not been recognized and accounted for by
the examiner.
As is pointed out by the appellants, Kant and Ainslie each discloses a suspension
element and an integral slider and transducer which must be subsequently attached to
each other by glue or solder, typical of the prior art described in the appellants’
specification. Even assuming the examiner is correct that Kant discloses an integral slider
and transducer formed by thin film deposition, and that Ainslie discloses a suspension
element formed by thin film deposition, the examiner has not explained why it would have
been obvious to arrive at a structure which calls for a suspension element whose thin film is
directly formed on the integral thin film slider and transducer.3
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1-3, 21, 31-34, 36-39 and 55
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kant, Ainslie and Hosokawa cannot be
sustained. The rejection of claims 4, 20, 22, 24-30, 40-43, 45, 48 and 51-54 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Kant and Ainslie cannot be sustained.
2 The appellants’ specification, in discussing the prior art, explains that prior art assemblies have a
structure made from separately produced suspension arm and integral slider and transducer which are later
interconnected by gluing or soldering.
3 Hosokawa is relied on by the examiner in connection with other features of the appellants’ claimed
invention over which there is no apparent dispute in this appeal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007