Appeal No. 2003-0273 Page 4
Application No. 09/863,664
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).
The only argument set forth by the appellants with regard to the rejection of claim
23 is that the Goss microchip is not mounted “in” the opening 51. We do not agree. As
shown in Figure 5 and described in column 8, at least a portion the microchip protrudes
through and therefore is mounted “in” opening 51, and thus it is our view that the terms
of claim 23 are met by the Goss device, and we will sustain the rejection.
Claim 33 requires that there be a load beam having a base portion, a spring
portion, and a rigid portion, and that a slider be mounted on “a first side” of the rigid
portion and a microchip on “a second side” of the rigid portion. The load beam in Goss
is a two-piece construction comprising a base 12 that is caused to be rigid by the
presence of a shell 31 attached thereto. 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). In the Goss arrangement, the slider is
mounted on a first side of the load beam but the microchip is not mounted on a second
side of the load beam, but is located within the cavity of the load beam. Thus, the step
of mounting the microchip on a second “side” of the load beam is not taught by Goss,
and the reference does not anticipate claim 33.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007