Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
a gimbal spring, formed integrally with a load beam and
having a slider-mounting portion on which said slider is mounted
with an adhesive agent,
wherein said slider-mounting portion is supported by
said load beam via a beam portion and said slider-mounting
portion is partitioned by a C-shaped hole which is formed in said
gimbal spring in a direction facing said beam portion,
wherein at least one slit is formed in said slider-
mounting portion so that a portion where said slider is adhered
to said gimbal spring is limited by said at least one slit.
60. The magnetic head assembly of claim 59, wherein a dummy
thin-film pattern is also formed in said slider-mounting portion
so that a portion where said slider is adhered to said gimbal
spring is limited by said at least one slit and said dummy thin-
film pattern.
The references relied on by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims are:
Ainslie et al.(Ainslie) 4,761,699 Aug. 2, 1988
Konishi et al. (Konishi) 5,027,238 Jun. 25, 1991
Yaginuma et al. (Yaginuma) 5,377,064 Dec. 27, 1994
(filed Sep. 7, 1993)
Hyde 5,550,694 Aug. 27, 1996
(filed Jul. 12, 1993)
Claim 59 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Konishi.
Claim 60 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Konishi in view of Ainslie.
Claims 58 and 61-64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hyde in view of Yaginuma.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007