Appeal No. 95-4550
Application 08/025,902
appellant contends that there is no suggestion for combining the
reference teachings in the manner proposed by the examiner (see,
for example pages 12 and 13 of the brief). In particular,
appellant contends on page 14 of the brief that there is no
suggestion to modify the position of the dimple, presumably the
dimple in the Yamada reference inasmuch as the location of the
dimple in Yumura’s flexure corresponds to appellant’s claimed
location.
With regard to claims 9 and 10, appellant contends that the
prior art lacks a suggestion of positioning the head slider in
the manner recited in these claims.
We have carefully considered the issues raised in this
appeal together with the examiner’s remarks and appellant’s
arguments including those outlined supra. As a result, we will
sustain the rejections of claims 1 through 8, but not the
rejections of claims 9 and 10.
Considering first the rejection of claims 1 and 6 based on
Yumura in view of Yamada, appellant expressly relies on the
description in column 2, lines 52-59 of the Yumura specification
(see page 9 of the brief) in support of his contention that
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007