Appeal No. 96-2181
Application No. 07/963,440
In further response, the Examiner explains:
Although the specification is largely silent [as] to
the arrangement and makeup of the element 17,
Figures 2 and 4 would have been seen by one of ordinary
skill in the art as clearly suggesting a dimple
arrangement which bears in direct contact with the slider.
This arrangement is well known and has been documented in
other prior art as well - see Mitsubishi Electric
Corp (JP 3-16069, Figure 2b) and Matsushita Electric Ind
Co LTD (JP 3-201281, Figures 1-6). (Supplemental
Examiner’s at pages 1 and 2.)
Although the Examiner makes reference to additional
art, we find none of the applied references make this
suggestion. Furthermore, our reviewing court has stated that
where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether
or
not in a minor capacity, there would appear to be no excuse
for
not positively including the reference in the statement of the
rejection. In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342, 166 USPQ 406, 407
(CCPA 1970).
The Examiner has applied several secondary
references which may or may not meet most of the claim
limitations, however we find that the “load beam including a
load dimple bearing in direct engagement with said slider” of
-8-8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007