Appeal No. 2001-0165
Application 08/893,220
increase the spacing between the disk and the slider” as
required in the ultimate clause of the claim. The examiner’s
responsive argument is that the “only” in this clause is
applicable to the “side edge” limitation but not the
“proximate” portion of the clause. The appellant has provided
an argument on this issue based on the parallel nature of
clauses joined by “and” in the English language. This
argument is convincing to us, and we are of the view
appellants’ interpretation is more reasonable. Accordingly,
we hold that the claim requires the air bearing surface to be
removed only along the side edges and only proximate to the
magnetic head.
The examiner further argues that even if the claim is to
be interpreted as we have in the previous paragraph, Kawasaki
is anticipatory in that all the material removed at 17 and 18
of Kawasaki’s air bearing is still proximate the magnetic head
as compared to, say, the rails 20 and 25. “Proximate” is a
term of degree. When a word of degree is used in a claim we
must determine whether the specification provides some
standard for measuring that degree. See Seattle Box Co. v.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007