Appeal No. 1996-1655
Application 08/036,157
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. In a load beam of a given thickness for use in a head suspension assembly for attachment to
a rigid actuator arm, a connection wire support pad extending laterally from a longitudinal edge of a
base plate of said load beam, for supporting tubeless insulated connection wires along a length of the
load beam for connecting a head at a flexure end of the load beam to appropriate circuitry at the rigid
actuator arm, said support pad partially thinned to a thickness
less than the thickness of the load beam and including a well-radiused convex curvature cross-sectional
profile at a perimeter edge of the support pad to smoothly confront the connection wires and to thereby
avoid unwanted abrasion and bending of the wires.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Wanlass 4,992,898 Feb. 12, 1991
Hatch et al. (Hatch) 5,282,103 Jan. 25, 1994
(effectively filed Oct. 7, 1992)
Claims 1 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Hatch or Wanlass.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellant and the examiner, reference is made to the Briefs
and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied upon and the
level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the
obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 1 and 3. In reaching our conclusion on the issues
raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered appellant’s specification and claims, the applied
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007