Appeal No. 2002-1810 Page 3
Application No. 09/336,503
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The Rejection Under Section 102
Claims 5 and 10-22 stand rejected as being anticipated by Goss. Anticipation is
established only when a single prior art reference discloses, either expressly or under
the principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. See In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480-1481, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1675 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and In re
Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990). We find this not
to be the case with regard to any of the independent claims, and we therefore will not
sustain this rejection. Our reasoning follows.
Claim 5 depends from independent claim 1 through claim 4 (the appeal has been
withdrawn as to claims 1 and 4). Claim 1 recites, inter alia, a slider supported upon a
load beam having a base portion, a spring portion and a rigid portion, with the rigid
portion having a first side proximate the slider and a second side remote from the slider,
as well as a conductor defining a locus of electrical contact along the load beam and
being connected to the microchip. Claim 4 adds to claim 1 the requirement that the
conductor comprise a flexible circuit, and claim 5 further specifies that the flexible
conductor is located on the rigid portion first side of the load beam and defines the
locus of electrical contact opposite the microchip. The appellants argue that Goss does
not teach the location of the conductor that is specified in claim 5 (Reply brief, page 5).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007