Appeal No. 2002-1810 Page 4
Application No. 09/336,503
Goss is directed to a suspension for supporting a slider carrying a microchip in
operating proximity to a disk. Goss discloses a two-piece load beam comprising a base
12 that is made more rigid over a portion of its length (region 30) by a shell 31 attached
thereto, so as to create a cavity therebetween (Figure 4). Base 12 is provided with an
opening 51 that is larger than microchip 20 and through which microchip 20 is inserted
into the cavity for installation on the load beam (column 8, lines 39-43). An opening 50
smaller than microchip 20 is provided on shell 31, and the microchip is attached to shell
31 at its edges, which overlap the periphery of opening 50 (column 8, lines 43 and 44).
The relationship between microchip 20 and the load beam is described in the following
manner:
Although in a preferred low profile monocoque HSA [head suspension
assembly] the VTC IC may slightly protrude, the space inside the
monocoque region 30 is large enough to totally encase a custom IC and
all of the connections to its pins (column 8, lines 44-47).
We find that Goss does not disclose or teach the requirement recited in claim 5
that the conductor comprising the locus of electrical contact for the microchip is on the
same side of the load beam as the slider. In light of the appellants’ specification, we
interpret the first and second “sides” of the load beam to be the outer surfaces thereof
(see description of Figures 1 and 2 on page 7). As stated above in the quoted
sentence, the electrical connections to the pins of the microchip in the Goss
arrangement are located within the cavity created between the two components of the
composite load beam, and thus they are not on the first or the second “side” of the load
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007