Appeal No. 2003-1499
Application No. 09/531,872
slider displacement” for the purpose of providing “a simplified
assembly of the components.” Id.
The dispositive issue in this appeal is the claim construction
advanced by the examiner. The examiner finds that Arya discloses
an integrated suspension body having a unitary continuous load
beam, flexure and gimbal (Answer, pages 3 and 5). The examiner
states that the “claimed invention” does not require a “one-piece”
load beam, flexure and gimbal (Answer, page 5). Contrary to
appellants’ arguments (Brief, paragraph bridging pages 3-4), the
examiner construes the claimed language “free of assembly welds and
structural forming” as a method limitation in a product claim,
which in this instance has no effect on the completed structure
(Answer, page 5). We disagree with the examiner’s claim
construction.
During ex parte prosecution before the examiner, the claim
language must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation, when
read in light of the specification and as understood by one of
ordinary skill in the relevant art. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claim 1 on
appeal recites that the “integrated suspension body having a
unitary, continuous load beam, flexure and gimbal” is “free of
assembly welds and structural forming.” As defined by the examiner
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007