Appeal No. 2002-1810 Page 5
Application No. 09/336,503
beam, that is, upon the outer surface of the load beam. Since all of the subject matter
recited in claim 5 is not disclosed or taught by Goss, the claim is not anticipated, and
the rejection is not sustained.
Independent claim 10 recites a load beam having a slider mounted on a first side
and comprising a microchip-receiving opening “therethrough,” with the opening
including “a wall immediately laterally surrounding” the microchip and the microchip
being “mounted in said through-opening from said second side1 of said rigid portion.”
The examiner has found that the Goss “load beam” is of two-piece construction
comprising a base portion 12 and an attached spaced shell portion 31, a conclusion
with which we agree.2 This being the case, however, the Goss load beam does not
comprise a microchip-receiving opening “therethrough,” that is, through its entirety, for
although opening 51 in the base portion is larger than the microchip and thus receives
the microchip and surrounds it laterally, aligned opening 50 in the shell is smaller than
the microchip, and therefore the microchip is not “mounted in” this opening, with the
walls of the opening surrounding it laterally. Thus, this structure of claim 10 is lacking in
Goss. In addition, in the Goss arrangement the microchip is mounted through opening
1There is no antecedent basis for “said second side,” and we have interpreted this to mean “a
second side.” This error should be corrected.
2Shell 31 must be considered to be part of the load beam for it is necessary in order to provide the
“rigid portion” required by the appellants’ claims (see Goss column 6, lines 29-36 and line 58 et seq.).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007