Appeal No. 1998-2585
Application No. 08/643,935
the Examiner’s terminology of designating 12 as the claimed
back surface of the slider 11, then the recited first layer is
not located between the designated back surface and the second
layer (32 and 33). On the other hand, if we designate, in
Ooyama, 112 as the back surface of the slider, then the
physical positioning would satisfy the claimed relationship,
however, the claimed electrical connection is not satisfied.
We find no teaching or a line of reasoning provided by the
Examiner which would obviously enable an artisan to meet both
the claimed recitations in the combination of Ooyama and
Picault. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2 and 4.
With respect to independent claims 15 and 22, Appellants
mainly rely on the same reasons given for claim 1 (brief, page
8). We find that each of these claims does not require the
two recitations discussed relating to claim 1. In Ooyama, we
designate 112 as the back surface of the slider 11, and 12 as
the trailing edge of the slider. That would meet the claimed
electrical connection and the relative physical location of
the first layer (31), the second layer (32, 33), and the back
surface (112) of the slide. Furthermore, contrary to
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007