Appeal No. 1998-0203
Application No. 08/121,876
interface is effectively minimized while said slider
maintains its tilt or pitch. 1
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Chang et al. (Chang) 5,175,658 Dec. 29,
1992
Chapin et al. (Chapin) 5,267,109 Nov. 30, 1993
(effective filing date Jun. 14,
1991)
Krantz et al. (Krantz) 5,345,353 Sep. 6,
1994
(filed Sep. 21, 1992)
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 12 through 14, 16 and 21 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Krantz.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being2
unpatentable over Krantz in view of Chapin.
Claims 2, 8, 9, 15, 17, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Krantz in view of
Chang.
1It should be noted that the phrase “tilt or pitch” is
only mentioned in the disclosure (specification, page 5) in
connection with the Figure 5 embodiment wherein the hard wear-
resistant material (i.e., DLC carbon) is along the entire
length of the slider.
2The claimed “range of 100-600 microinches” appears to
lack support in the disclosure.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007