Appeal No. 2003-1499
Application No. 09/531,872
OPINION
The examiner finds that Arya discloses in Figure 1 “an
integrated suspension body having a unitary continuous load beam
11, flexure and gimbal for a disk drive free of assembly welds and
structural forming” (Answer, page 3). The examiner also finds that
Arya discloses a plurality of pockets 23 in load beam 11 as well as
a load/unload feature, with the load beam 11 formed from stainless
steel (Answer, paragraph bridging pages 3-4).
The examiner recognizes that Arya is “silent as to a gimbal
including outriggers and front and rear limiters for limiting
slider displacement relative to the load beam.” Answer, page 4.
Accordingly, the examiner applies Girard for the disclosure of an
integrated suspension body having a unitary continuous load beam,
flexure and gimbal, including outriggers 208 and front and rear
limiters 202 for limiting slider displacement relative to the load
beam (id.). From these findings, the examiner concludes it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art at the time
of appellants’ invention “to provide the load beam of Arya et al
with an integrated suspension body having a unitary continuous load
beam, flexure and gimbal such that the gimbal including [sic,
includes] outriggers and front and rear limiters for limiting
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007