Appeal No. 1998-1547
Application No. 08/582,001
The examiner’s rationale of utilizing the claimed
materials as “routine optimizing of the structure” [answer-
page 5] is unconvincing as it is not clear what is being
“optimized.” If it is the ability to more finely tune the
dimensions of the final structure of the suspension assembly,
the examiner has not explained why the artisan would have been
led, from the teaching of Erpelding of a polyimide layer
between two metal layers, to employ an etch retardant layer of
either gold, tungsten or nickel and why the use of such
materials would somehow “optimize” the structure.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 since, in our view, the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness. Claims 2-6 and
22-26 will stand with the independent claims.
We have, pro forma, sustained the rejection of claims 1-6
and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, but we have
not sustained the rejection of claims 1-6 and 21-26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007