Appeal No. 1998-0203
Application No. 08/121,876
(column 8, line 63 through column 9, line 15), we presume that
the hard wear-resistant material is deposited on 100% of the
surface area of the rails. Notwithstanding the teachings of
Krantz, the examiner indicates that it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide “the air
bearing slider of Krantz et al[.] (‘353) with a wear resistant
material that is only deposited on portions of the rails
instead of along the whole rails to reduce unnecessary
materials in order to reduce the cost of manufacturing.” The
record on appeal is completely devoid of evidence that costs
of manufacturing would be reduced by depositing the material
on only portions of the rails. The cost of manufacturing may
in fact increase because selective deposit of the material
requires shielding of the areas that are to remain free of the
material. Krantz is also silent as to depositing the material
at two different thicknesses on different surfaces of the air
bearing slider. Since no comparative evidence has been
presented by the examiner, we refuse to speculate as to cost
savings from selective deposit of the noted material. Thus,
the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 12 through 14,
16 and 21 is reversed because we agree with the appellants
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007