Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
as set forth by the Examiner (answer, pages 5 & 8), one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include
the at least two slits of Yaginuma in the gimbal pad of Hyde to
reduce or limit the “part of said slider-mounting portion onto
which said adhesive agent is located.”
Additionally, the Examiner bases the combination of the
reference teachings to include the at least two slits in the
gimbal pad of Hyde on the suggestion of Yaginuma to minimize
slider camber by dividing the adhering portion in several parts
(col. 5, lines 12-22). Although, the motivation to modify a
prior art reference to arrive at the claimed subject matter does
not have to be identical to that of applicants to establish
obviousness (see In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309,
1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996), Yaginuma’s slits for dividing the adhering
portion also limits the area onto which the adhesive agent is
located between the magnetic head and the gimbal. Therefore, we
find the Examiner’s position to be reasonable and sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 58 and 61-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Hyde and Yaginuma is sustained.
Turning to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 59 over
Konishi, we note that Appellants only argue that slit 15a of
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007