Appeal No. 1997-3965
Application No. 08/389,069
as a single group with claim 1, the only independent claim, as
representative.5
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 5, 7, 8, and 10.
Claim 1 requires that (1) the longitudinal axis of the
slider body extends parallel to both the longitudinal axis of
the associated head arm and also the tangent line of an
intermediate track when the body is positioned thereover, (2)
two rails extend obliquely to the longitudinal axis of the
slider body, and (3) the angle between the rails and a tangent
line of a track over which the slider is positioned is zero
for the innermost track and increases as the slider moves
radially away from the innermost track. The examiner asserts
that Toensing shows (1) (Answer, page 4), Yamada teaches (2)
(Answer, pages 5-7), and Kuroda and Ono teach (3) (Answer,
pages 4-5).
Since the examiner only applied Hanagata against claim 8, which is to5
stand or fall with claim 1, we will not discuss Hanagata in this decision.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007