Appeal No. 2002-1385
Application No. 09/049,861
teach that the minimum fly height area is on the inner rail. However, the elongated
portion of chip 4e, as shown in Samoto’s Figure 2, meets the terms of “the inner rail” as
claimed.2 With respect to claims 7 and 11, appellants argue that Samoto fails to teach
that the bumps have a height above the surface such that the minimum fly height area
of the slider does not touch the surface of the disk during landing. We agree with
appellants’ assessment. Although we suspect that the minimum fly height area of the
slider in Samoto never touches the disk, the reference is silent on the point. Thus, the
record lacks evidence sufficient to sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 11. The
rejection of claim 12, which incorporates the limitations of claim 11, also cannot be
sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 5, 6, and 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Samoto is affirmed. The remainder of the rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102, including all those applied against claims 7 and 11-12, are reversed.
The examiner’s decision in rejecting claims 5-12 is thus affirmed-in-part.
2 We note that each occurrence of “the minimum fly height area” in claims 10 and 11 lacks proper
antecedent basis in the claims.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007