Appeal No. 1998-2566
Application 08/685,420
claim 2 [brief, pages 4-7]. The examiner maintains his
position that the flexure in Erpelding is comprised of areas
24, 34 and 54, and the examiner asserts that the slider
support member is the adhesive which provides a region where
the slider is mechanically attached. The examiner finds that
the first and second fingers of Erpelding are connected to
this adhesive by way of element 32 on the first layer [answer,
pages 9-11].
We agree with the position argued by appellants.
Although we admire the imaginative way in which the examiner
has attempted to read the claimed invention on the disclosure
of Erpelding, we are nevertheless compelled to find that the
examiner’s interpretation of the claimed invention and the
corresponding structure of Erpelding is not reasonable.
In our view, the first unreasonable interpretation
made by the examiner is the finding that elements 24, 34 and
54 of Erpelding comprise the flexure. Appellants argue that
these elements comprise the load beam. The load beam and
flexure are well established terms of art in this field. As
disclosed by Erpelding, “[t]he load beam provides the
resilient spring action which biases the slider toward the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007