Appeal No. 1998-2566
Application 08/685,420
present, is connected to the first and second finger regions
of the flexure as recited in claim 2. We are also unpersuaded
by the examiner’s assertion that this connection includes a
part of the first layer as claimed. As appellants point out,
the drawings of Erpelding show no connection between the first
layer and a slider support member. The examiner’s contention
that this connection exists is pure speculation.
Since we find that every feature of independent claim
2 is not contained within the disclosure of Erpelding, we do
not sustain the rejection of claim 2 or of claims 3, 7, 8 and
10 which depend therefrom.
With respect to independent claim 16, appellants argue
that the specific claimed connection of the load beam to the
slider support member through the flexure is not disclosed by
Erpelding [brief, page 7]. Since the examiner’s finding of
anticipation with respect to claim 16 is based on the same
unreasonable interpretation of Erpelding discussed above, we
do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 16.
We now consider the rejection of claims 5, 6, 11, 15,
17, 18, 24, 25, 27 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In rejecting
claims
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007