Appeal No. 2003-0065
Application 09/491,284
on anticipation. The rejection of claim 10 over Fukuoka is
reversed.
Anticipation - Brezoczky
Claims 1, 2, 10-12, 26, 31, and 33-39
The examiner finds these claim anticipated by the slider and
read/write head in Figs. 2 and 5 of Brezoczky (EA3).
Although appellants group these claims together, appellants
argue claims 1 and 10 separately. Thus, we take claims 1 and 2
to stand or fall together and claims 10-12, 26, 31, and 33-39 to
stand or fall together.
Claims 1 and 2
Appellants argue that Brezoczky fails to teach a magnetic
pole tip structure embedded within a pad because Fig. 5 shows the
head formed on surface 58 normal to the surface 54 of the slider
and not embedded therein (Br10).
The examiner states that "embed" is defined as "to make an
integral part of" and, therefore, finds that the head 17 in
Fig. 5 is embedded in the pad 52 (EA8).
This is the first time this claim interpretation has been
explained. Claim 1 recites "a magnetic pole tip structure being
embedded within said pad." The qualification "within said pad"
means the definition of "embed" is "to enclose closely in or as
if in a matrix" or "to place or fix firmly in surrounding
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007