Appeal No. 2003-1499
Application No. 09/531,872
the suspension would be weaker at the weld joints, as well as
having welding material or flux at these joints, and have less
flexibility than the same suspension that was not welded.2 Of
course, it is equally clear that structural forming would have an
effect on the completed structure (e.g., see Girard, Figure 1 and
col. 4, ll. 37-39). Therefore we determine that the examiner has
not established that the load beam, flexure and gimbal welded
together to form the suspension body of Arya would be identical
to the unitary, continuous load beam, flexure and gimbal of the
claimed integrated suspension body.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that the scope of
claim 1 on appeal includes a unitary or one-piece integrated
suspension body including the load beam, flexure and gimbal, with
the structural limitations “free of assembly welds and structural
forming.” Appellants point out numerous disclosures in both Arya
and Girard where the suspension body comprises at least two pieces
which are welded together, as well as the disclosure of stiffening
rails 32 in Girard (Brief, pages 4-5; see Arya, col. 2, ll. 45-57;
col. 3, ll. 33-36; col. 4, ll. 1-9; and Girard, col. 4, ll. 29-64).
The examiner has not shown either reference to be free of assembly
2See Arya, col. 2, ll. 45-54, and col. 4, ll. 1-5.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007