Appeal No. 1998-0206
Application No. 08/550,514
Matsuzaki 5,001,583 Mar. 19, 1991
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuzaki and
Ainslie.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 15) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 23) for
a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (Paper No. 22) for appellants’ position.
OPINION
In the Final Rejection, Claims 1-16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Matsuzaki and Ainslie. Subsequent to the Final Rejection, the independent claims (1
and 6) were amended in accordance with the submission filed February 3, 1997 (Paper No. 18). 1
Material was added to the independent claims, including provision of an “unbonded electrical
connection” between the slider and gimbal assembly.
Appellants argue in the Brief that the combination of Matsuzaki and Ainslie fails to disclose or
suggest all the features of the appealed claims; in particular, an “unbonded electrical connection.” The
corresponding language in the claims is believed to distinguish over the “solder balls and pad taught by
Ainslie,” which provide “both a mechanical and electrical connection.” (Brief, page 9.)
1We note an informality in the amendment of February 3, 1997, in that the amendments to Claims 1
and 6 merely show deletions with respect to a previously submitted amendment that was not entered
(amendment filed January 8, 1997, Paper No. 16), rather than insertions and deletions with respect to Claims
1 and 6 as they stood after the amendment filed September 16, 1996 (Paper No. 14).
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007