Appeal No. 1998-0596
Application 08/259,370
The appellants further argue that Ainslie’s slider is not a thin film slider formed by
thin film deposition. According to the appellants, Ainslie’s slider is a substrate over which
various thin film layers are deposited to form the transducers. But none of claims 46, 47,
49 and 50 requires that the slider itself without the transducer be formed of thin film
deposition. All of claims 47, 49 and 50 depend from claim 46 which specifies that “each of
the suspension and the integrated slider and transducer consisting essentially of a plurality
of thin film layers formed by layer upon layer of thin film depositions.” Insofar as the
appellants argue that the slider portion of Ainslie’s integrated slider and transducer is a
single substrate section over which the layers of the transducer are deposited, it should be
noted, however, that the appellants’ own preferred embodiments reflect the same kind of
construction.
From line 25, page 11 to line 2, page 12, the appellants’ specification states: “The
transducers are deposited on a relatively thick layer of alumina or other suitable material
which is chosen for its ability to act as an etch stop and potential use as a slider section”
(Emphasis added). In the context of the appellants’ claims, read reasonably in light of the
specification, the presence of a starting substrate section over which thin film depositions
are made to form the integral slider and transducer appears implicit. See, for example,
Figure 4A, wherein a wafer substrate is shown having a plurality of transducers deposited
thereon (page 19, lines 11-12), and Figure 4B, where numeral 100 designates a wafer
substrate and numeral 110 represents layers that form the transducers (page 19, lines 19-
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007