Appeal No. 2003-1499
Application No. 09/531,872
reinforcement such as flange forming, and requires no additional
weld processing to form the functional portion of the assembly
(id.). Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A suspension for a disk drive, comprising:
an integrated suspension body having a unitary, continuous
load beam, flexure, and gimbal, wherein the integrated suspension
body is free of assembly welds and structural forming for enhancing
mechanical strength of the integrated suspension body;
a plurality of pockets in the load beam and flexure of the
integrated suspension body;
a load/unload feature on the integrated suspension body; and
wherein the gimbal comprises:
an etched gimbal assembly including outriggers and front and
rear limiters for limiting slider displacement relative to the load
beam.
The examiner has relied upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Girard 5,771,136 Jun. 23, 1998
Arya et al. (Arya) 6,219,203 Apr. 17, 2001
(filed Apr. 12, 1999)
The claims on appeal stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Arya in view of Girard (Answer, page 3). We
reverse the examiner’s rejection essentially for the reasons stated
in the Brief and those reasons set forth below.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007