Appeal No. 1999-2280
Application No. 08/686,567
2, 4, 6 through 14, 16, 18 through 24, 26 and 28 through 30, and
the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 5, 15, 17, 25, 27
and 31.
The examiner makes the point (answer, page 8) that:
Clearly and without question, Kubo et al (US
5,198,934) discloses a planarized silicon coating
((39); see COL. 5, line 4) is provided on at least a
portion of the air bearing surface. More specifically,
Kubo et al (US 5,198,934) discloses the coating as
silicon dioxide. Silicon dioxide, contains silicon.
Moreover, the claims are open ended, containing the word
“comprising.” Thus other coatings and/or compounds of
silicon are not in any way excluded from the claimed
invention.
Appellants argue (brief, page 6) that:
Claims 1, 11 and 20 each include the feature of a
slider having an air bearing surface coated with a
silicon coating for protecting the air bearing surface.
None of the prior art references of record in the
present case, either alone or in reasonable
combination, teach or suggest an apparatus as defined
by claims 1, 11 and 20. For example, at col. 5, line
4, the Kubo et al. reference discloses using a coating
material such as silicon dioxide, as opposed to the
elemental silicon.
If Kubo had a “silicon” coating on an air-bearing surface of
a slider, then the open-ended nature of appellants’ claims would
not preclude other coatings (e.g., silicon dioxide) on the air-
bearing surface. Since Kubo discloses the use of a silicon
dioxide coating on an air-bearing surface of a slider, and not a
silicon coating, the examiner’s open-ended claim statement is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007