Appeal No. 1998-0596
Application 08/259,370
deemed patentable. Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection of claim 49.
With regard to claim 50, 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 claim 50 recites, however, does not establish patentable
distinction over the prior art. The appellants then argue that claim 50 is further
distinguished over the references for the same reasons as given in support for claim 25.
The pertinent claimed feature of claim 50 is that the edge surfaces of the layers of the
suspension lie in a common plane with the front wall of the integrated slider and
transducer. The examiner’s position (answer at 9) is this -- whether the edge surfaces of
the suspension layers lie in a common plane as the front wall of the slider makes no
significant difference insofar as the combined suspension and slider is concerned. The
examiner concludes that selection of the feature “is well within the purview of a skilled
artisan” in the absence of an unobvious result (answer at 9). On page 9 of the answer, the
examiner further explains:
Furthermore, providing a front thin film surface wall of the thin
film slider contiguous with a common front wall plane of a
suspension provide a slider/suspension arrangement that
uses less material, which reduces manufacturing cost, and an
even perimeter, which takes up less space and is more stable.
The examiner’s rationale provides a plausible basis for the conclusion of
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007