Appeal 2007-1281
Application 10/104,386
1 We AFFIRM.2
2 We also use our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) to enter a new
3 ground of rejection for claim 1.
4
5 REFERENCE
6 The reference relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting claim 1 is as
7 follows:
8 Zeng3 US 6,697,216 B2 Feb. 24, 2004
9 (Filed Jul. 31, 2001)
10
11 ISSUE
12 The issue is whether Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
13 rejecting claim 1 based on anticipation. The issue specifically turns on
14 whether Zeng expressly or inherently discloses a bonding area of the slider
15 of the reverse type of HGA is provided on the opposite side of trace
16 connections for the traces, as set forth in Appellant’s claim 1.
17
18 FINDINGS OF FACT
19 The following findings of fact (FF) are supported by a preponderance
20 of the evidence.
21
2 Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in
this decision. Arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
3 See Examiner’s Answer page 3, item 8. Appellant and the Non-Final
Rejection dated March 4, 2005 cites Zeng et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,735,051) which
is a divisional of US Patent 6,697,216.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013