Appeal No. 95-4550
Application 08/025,902
sentence bridging pages 10 and 11 of the brief. Appellant also
proffers no evidence to support this argument. In fact, the prior
art embodiment shown in Figure 5 of Yumura’s drawings does appear
to have a double bend bight such that the flexure portion
attached to the load beam and the flexure portion mounting the
transducer slider lie in parallel planes at least in the
condition illustrated in Figure 5.
Finally, the mere fact that Yumura and Yamada may seek to
solve somewhat different problems does not lead to the conclusion
that Yumura teaches away from the use of Yamada’s double bight
portion to “enable a head slider to have substantially the same
flexibility in both the rolling and pitching directions” (Yamada
specification, column 2, lines 15-17). Such a teaching would have
been ample motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to
incorporate Yamada’s double bend flexure member or gimbal spring,
as it is called in the Yamada specification, into Yumura’s
illustrated embodiments or, at the very least, the embodiment
shown in Figure 2 of Yumura’s drawings particularly in view of
the fact that the prior art support mechanism, which Yamada seeks
to improve and which is described in column 1, lines 21-37 of
Yamada’s specification, appears to correspond to the prior art
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007