Appeal No. 1998-0596
Application 08/259,370
The appellants argue that claim 46 is considered to be patentable over the
references for the same reasons as given in support of claims 1 and 40. With regard to
claim 40, the appellants states that it requires the bottom edges of the integrated thin film
slider 72 and transducer 74 to form an air bearing surface as is shown in Figs. 5A and 7B.
(Br. at 19). According to the appellants, “[t]here is no art teaching of an air bearing surface
composed entirely of edges of thin films” (Br. at 19). The appellants’ argument is
persuasive.
Claim 46 does require the air bearing surface to be formed by the “edges” of the
thin films constituting the integrated slider and transducer. Specifically, claim 46 recites:
“the air bearing surface of the integrated slider and transducer consisting of only second
edge surfaces of the thin film layers of said integrated slider and transducer.” The
examiner has failed to expressly account for this specific feature of the appellants’ claims
46, 47, 49 and 50. The examiner pointed out on page 7 of the answer that Kant’s slider 32
is mounted to the suspension with the top of slider 32 engaging the bottom of the
suspension and the bottom of slider 32 forming an air bearing surface. However, the
examiner has acknowledged that Kant is silent as to any thin film structure of its slider.
(Answer at 8). Even if Kant’s slider has a thin film structure, the examiner has not shown
any disclosure or suggestion that the air bearing surface in Kant is constituted by the
collective edges of thin films as opposed to a planar surface.
Nonetheless, the examiner relied on a combination comprising Kant’s suspension
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007