Appeal No. 2002-2300 Page 4
Application No. 09/186,212
defined by parallel edges at 126 and 128) and a rear portion (134 and 140), with the
rear portion having a width greater than the neck portion. The lead portion and the first
and second rails form a subambient pressure region (122; column 8, lines 4 and 5) in
between the first and second rails when the slider body flies above a moving recording
medium. Each rear portion “includes” an inside rail edge facing the subambient
pressure area (the widening inside edges that originate at the rear terminuses of the
parallel edges which define the neck portions and terminate at the parallel edges which
define the rearmost section of the rear portion), such that each of the inside rail edges
forms an angle greater than 0° with a longitudinal axis of the slider. There also is a first
secondary structure (125) that has a height less than the height of the first and second
rails and is disposed adjacent to one of the inside rail edges.
All of the language recited in claim 1 therefore “reads on” structure in Strom, and
thus the reference anticipates the claim.
The appellant’s arguments presented on pages 3 and 4 of the Supplemental
Brief do not persuade us that by the analysis set forth above is defective for, as we
stated above, the rear portion of each of the rails appears clearly to have a width
greater than the neck portion, and secondary structure meeting the terms of the claim is
present. The argument that the appellant’s bearing slider is “stiffer” than that of Strom
appears to be predicated upon limitations that are not present in claim 1, and thus fails
at the outset. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1982).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007