GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting-in-part:
I would not affirm the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and
3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
The presently claimed invention is directed to a contact-
type magnetic disk drive in which a suspension spring having a
length less than 5 millimeters, and preferably ranging from 1 to
3 millimeters, supports the magnetic head slider. Appellant
discloses on pages 16-18 of the specification that the length of
the suspension spring along with the slider mass and the load
urging the slider affect jump and wear thickness. Hamaguchi,
relied on by the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims under
both 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103, discloses a similar
structure with a suspension spring having a length which "can be
reduced to 3-9 mm" (see column 5, lines 61-62).
The appealed claims define a structure including a
suspension spring having a range of lengths which overlaps to a
small extent the range disclosed by Hamaguchi. In my opinion,
such facts support a prima facie case of obviousness under 35
U.S.C. § 103, but do not rise to the level of anticipation under
35 U.S.C. § 102. Anticipation requires the disclosure, in a
single prior art reference, of each element of the claim under
consideration. W.L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984). In order to arrive at the presently
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007