Appeal No. 2002-1385
Application No. 09/049,861
free zone, for all that instant claim 5 requires of the “bump zone.” The claim calls for
“the bump zone being formed with bumps protruding from the surface of said disk.” As
best seen in Figure 1 of Samoto, the relatively raised portions of disk 1 between
grooves 8 may be fairly considered “bumps protruding from the surface of said disk.”
The surface of disk 1, from which the bumps protrude, is relatively lower than the
surface of the disk at the texture free zone between the sets of grooves 8. Moreover,
“the surface of said disk” as set forth in claim 5 merely relates to position with respect to
the bumps, since the bumps themselves form the surface of the disk at the locations of
the protruding portions of the bumps.
Appellants also contend that claim 9 distinguishes over Samoto in the step of
“reducing a rotation rate of the disk to allow a portion of the air bearing surface not
having the lowest flying height to contact the textured area of the landing zone first.”
(Brief at 6.) In view of the rest position of slider 4, shown in Figure 3 of Samoto, we find
that a portion of the air bearing surface not having the lowest flying height -- namely,
slider surface 4c (Figs. 1 and 3) -- contacts the textured area of the landing zone first.
Instant claim 9 is silent as to what the area having the lowest flying height may or may
not contact. The claim recites the “untextured area being under an area” on the air
bearing surface having a lowest flying height, which is met by Samoto’s magnetic head
chip 4e being over the untextured area, as shown in Figure 2.
Appellants present arguments in defense of certain dependent claims at page 7
of the Brief. Appellants argue, with respect to claims 6 and 10, that Samoto fails to
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007