Appeal No. 1998-0596
Application 08/259,370
and Ainslie’s slider assembly to make the rejection. Accordingly, the structure of Ainslie’s
slider is important. As can be seen in Ainslie’s Figure 4, an exploded cross-section side
view of Ainslie’s thin film slider, the bottom portion forming an air bearing surface is indeed
a collection of the edges of the thin films. While Ainslie’s air bearing surface may
comprise of portions which are not edges of thin films, claims 46, 47, 49 and 50 do not,
contrary to appellants’ argument (Br. at 19), require that the air bearing surface of the slider
be “composed entirely of edges of thin films.”
Thus, we affirm the rejection of claim 46.
With regard to claim 47, first the appellants reiterate what it recites and then
conclude, without any meaningful explanation, that it distinguishes over the prior art.
Merely pointing out what a claim recites, however, does not establish patentable distinction
over the prior art. The appellants also state that claim 47 is further distinguished over the
references for the same reasons as given in support of claim 26. The argument is rejected
because the features particularly recited in claim 26 and argued specifically by the
appellants are not recited in claim 47. Note that while claim 26 requires the thin film lead
layers of the thin film transducer to be connected to the thin film conductor leads of the thin
film suspension by thin film deposition, claim 47 has no such requirement. Claim 47 does
not preclude connection by conventional means, i.e., solder. Accordingly, we affirm the
rejection of claim 47.
The appellants argue that claim 49 is patentable for the same reasons claim 47 is
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007