Appeal No. 1998-0206
Application No. 08/550,514
In the Answer the examiner sets out a rejection on pages 4 through 8, using the same
references as in the Final Rejection. The examiner relies on Ainslie for disclosure of “electrically [sic]
metal conductors (70, 700) affixed to the slider 16 and in directly abutting contacted [sic] with the
gimbal assembly and which is sandwiched between a gimbal assembly and a head assembly....”
(Answer, page 5.) “[D]irect abutting contact” language was present in Claims 1 and 6 at the time of the
Final Rejection. However, the language was deleted by the later amendment.
The examiner admits, at the bottom of page 5 of the Answer, that neither reference discloses an
“unbonded” electrical connection as now claimed. No additional reference, or other evidence, is
applied to show obviousness of the claimed subject matter. Instead, the examiner states that “[o]ne of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace the ‘bonded’ conductors of Matsuzaki
with ‘unbonded’ conductors to reduce the resistivity of the conductors in order to improve conductivity
and to reduce the thickness of the head assembly.” (Id. at 6.)
The rejection is flawed on its face. In the first place, it is unstated what the “bonded”
conductors of Matsuzaki may be. The examiner points to “conductor paths (25, 26)” (id. at 4), then
states that Matsuzaki does not disclose that “conductors (25, 26) are made of electrically [sic] metal”
(id. at 5). The examiner later refers to “electrically [sic] metal conductors (70, 700) affixed to the slider
16” in Ainslie. (Id.) Matsuzaki reveals, in column 4, lines 37 through 43, that structures 25 and 26 are
“[b]eam lead conductors” connecting conductors 236, 237 to electrodes 248, 249. Ainslie discloses,
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007