Appeal No. 1998-0538
Application 08/424,634
slider 28 by means of the intermediate support mechanism, the
gimbal spring 30. However, we find no projection protruding
from the carriage on one side of the slider as required by
this claim and the drawing in Figures 1-4 as relied on by the
examiner.
We make similar observations with respect to the
examiner's application of Nagase's prior art Figures 4-8
against claim 4. The examiner's view that the slider means of
the claim is
element 5 is misplaced since this element is a magnetic core
in Figure 5. The examiner's view that the carriage means of
the claim comprises elements 3/4 is also misplaced since these
are both ceramic sliders. Again, the examiner takes the view
that two projection means comprising parts of these misapplied
elements 3 and 4 compose the part of the rail contacting the
disk in the vicinity of the slider. Again, there is no rail
claimed and the examiner is misapplying the corresponding
portions of the ceramic sliders 3, 4 as the examiner did in
the Figure 2 showing. If we correctly apply the reference
against the claim consistently with its own teachings, we are
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007