Appeal No. 97-2035
Application 08/161,234
Claim 13 depends from claim 9 and recites the additional
step of tapering the slider’s load-bearing surface with its
narrow end facing into the relative motion of the magnetic
recording disk for deflecting magnetic disk surface debris.
The examiner has not addressed how the claimed invention
including this particular feature would have been rendered
obvious on the basis of the teachings of the combination of
Kume, Shiroishi, or Tsuchiya, and Abo. A prima facie case of
obviousness has not been set forth and thus the rejection of
claim 13 cannot be sustained.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1-3, 6 and 9-12 as being unpatentable over Kume or
Shiroishi, in view of Abo. We do not sustain the rejection of
claims 4, 13 and 15 as being unpatentable over Kume or
Shiroishi, in view of Abo. Furthermore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 9-13, and 15 as being unpatentable
over Tsuchiya in view of Abo.
The rejection of claims 5 and 14 over
Kume, Shiroishi, or Tsuchiya, in light of Abo and Kubo
Claims 5 and 14 recite a solid self-lubricating coating
on the conductive surface of the slider. The examiner relied
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007