Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
magnetic core is a part of the slider, slit 15a also limits the
area on the slider onto which the adhesive agent is located. We
also disagree with Appellants’ arguments (brief, pages 8 & 9)
that because the placement of through hole 15 prevents the
magnetic core from running into the gimbal spring, it does not
limit the adhesive area between slider 1 and flexure portion 14.
As pointed out by the Examiner, with placing hole 15 over the
magnetic core, the adhesive E, used to attach the slider to the
gimbal spring in the portion confined between C-shaped hole 12a,
is prevented from entering between the slider and the gimbal
spring in the area of the slider under hole 15. In fact, absent
slit 15a, the adhesive would have covered the entire surface
between slider 1 and gimbal spring 14 which is confined between
C-shaped hole 12a. Thus, we find that the Examiner has met the
burden of providing a prima facie case of anticipation.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 59 over
Konishi is sustained.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 60
over Konishi and Ainslie, Appellants argue that Ainslie does not
disclose the dummy thin-film pattern recited in the claim (brief,
page 9). Appellants further point out that Ainslie merely
adheres slider 16 on conductive layer 44 of suspension 40 by
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007