Appeal No. 1998-2585
Application No. 08/643,935
claims 6 and 8 to 12.
Claims 21, 34, 35, 37, 38 and 40
We first consider claim 34. The Examiner (answer, page
9) adds Fuchigami to the combination of Ooyama and Picault to
meet the limitation of “an electrical cable . . . is not
positioned over the slider.” Additional to the analysis of
the combination of Ooyama and Picault above, we agree with the
Examiner that Fuchigami does show part of the wiring board 5
(electrical cable) as not positioned over the slider 2.
Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 34
and its grouped claims 35, 37 and 38, since they have not been
argued separately.
Regarding claims 21 and 40, the Examiner (answer, page 9)
points in Fuchigami to electrical cable 5 which comprises a
curved portion not positioned over the slider (2) for ensuring
resonant frequency response for the slider. We are not
convinced by Appellants’ conclusory statement (brief, pages 9
and 10) that “[t]here is no suggestion in any of the prior art
for combining the curved conductor of Fuchigami with the
suspension of Ooyama et al., and the materials of Picault et
al., to yield the suspension of claims 21 and 40.” We are of
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007