Appeal No. 1999-2703
Application No. 08/772,068
While appellant may have achieved advantageous results
employing the parameters claimed, we do not find persuasive
any of appellant’s arguments as to why, in view of the
examiner’s explanation, the instant claimed subject matter
would not have been obvious, within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §
103.
While claim 2 requires both a head slider with a mass of
greater than 2 mg and an urging load of less than 1 g, and
perhaps this combination might distinguish over the applied
references, appellant appears to argue only the limitation
directed to the mass of the slider. We find no argument
directed to the combination of these masses. Arguments not
made are waived. In re Kroekel, 803 F.2d 705, 709, 231 USPQ
640, 642-43 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
With regard to claim 4, adding the limitation of
sequentially reducing the thickness of the suspension spring
from a side adjoining the spring support mechanism toward the
magnetic head slider, the examiner relies on Figure 1 of
Hamilton for this teaching, contending that it would have been
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007