Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
slits of Hyde do not limit the adhesive agent (brief, page 7).
With respect to Yaginuma, Appellants argue that the disclosed
slits 71 may not be substituted for the claimed U-shaped holes
(id.).
However, we note that the Examiner characterizes the
elements disclosed by Hyde and Yaginuma differently from what
Appellants argue above. The examiner, in fact, relying on Figure
4, indicates that Hyde provides for two opposing U-shaped holes
(immediately left and right of slider-mounting portion 49) and
two opposing V-shaped holes (above and below gimbal spring 49)
formed outside of the U-shaped holes (answer, pages 6 & 8).
Recognizing that the gimbal portion of Hyde lacks the two slits
that limit the portion onto which the adhesive agent is located,
the Examiner further relies on Figures 8 & 9 of Yaginuma. The
Examiner points to Yaginuma’s gimbal spring which includes
slider-mounting portion 84 wherein at least two slits 71 limit
the area of the slider-mounting portion that is attached to
slider 2 by adhesive agent 90 (answer, page 6). The Examiner
further argues that the rejection is not based on substituting
the slits of Yaginuma for the U-shaped holes of Hyde, instead,
Yaginuma provides for additional “at least two slits” (answer,
page 9).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007