Ex parte HAMILTON et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1999-2281                                                        
          Application No. 08/621,521                                                  


          traveling from adjacent the mounting end of the beam                        
          substantially along a lengthwise direction of the beam.  Claim              
          1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as                 
          follows:                                                                    
               1.   A device for reading or writing information on a                  
          spinning, rigid magnetic storage disk, comprising:                          
                    an elongate flexure beam extending between a                      
          mounting end and a free end and including a plurality of                    
          longitudinal conductors, and                                                
                    an electromagnetic transducer composed of a                       
          plurality of adjoining layers, connected to said beam adjacent              
          to said free end and coupled to said conductors, said                       
          transducer concurrently communicating with and contacting a                 
          portion of the disk traveling from adjacent said mounting end               
          substantially along a lengthwise direction of said beam.                    
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Matsuura et al. (Matsuura)    5,065,271                Nov. 12,             
                                                                 1991                 
                                                  (filed Feb. 26, 1990)               
          Gill et al. (Gill)            5,561,570                Oct. 01,             
                                                                 1996                 
                                        (effectively filed Feb. 26,                   
          1993)                                                                       
               Claims 1, 4, 11, 12, 20, 22, and 28 stand rejected under               
          35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being clearly anticipated by Gill.                    
               Claims 5, 6, 8, 18, 19, and 26 stand rejected under 35                 
          U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gill.                               
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007