Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
thin-film pattern that, with a slit, may limit the adhesive
between the slider and the gimbal spring. This limitation
requires that a dummy pattern and a slit on the gimbal spring
limit the portion where the slider is attached to the gimbal
spring. Therefore, based on our review of Ainslie, we agree with
Appellants that conductive layer 44 and its extensions 49 are not
the same as the claimed dummy thin-film pattern formed in a
slider-mounting portion of a gimbal spring that would limit the
adhesive material between the pattern and a slit. The Examiner
has failed to identify any teachings in the prior art that would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed
dummy thin-film pattern and to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 60 over Konishi and Ainslie.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007