Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
Konishi prevents the adhesive E from invading between the
magnetic core 4 and the flexure portion 14 (brief, page 8).
Appellants assert that Konishi does not provide the slit for
limiting the portion where the slider is adhered on the gimbal
spring, but rather, it is aimed “to prevent the adhesive E from
flowing toward the magnetic core and escaping from the end
portion of the magnetic core 4 when the flexure portion is bent”
(brief, page 9).
In response, the Examiner points out that the magnetic core
of Konishi is a part of the magnetic head and the slider where
the slider is attached to the gimbal spring (answer, page 10).
The Examiner further asserts that preventing the adhesive E from
invading between the magnetic core and the flexure portion would
also limit the portion where the slider (including the magnetic
core) is adhered onto the gimbal spring (id.).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires a
finding that the claim at issue “reads on” a prior art reference.
Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346, 51 USPQ2d
1943, 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. v.
Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781, 227 USPQ 773, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
See also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Further, establishing anticipation of a claim
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007