Appeal No. 2003-0065
Application 09/491,284
We agree with the examiner's conclusion that it would have
been obvious to make the thin sheet 52 in Brezoczky U-shaped in
view of the U-shaped surface taught in Fig. 7 in Fukuoka.
Appellants do not address or show error in the examiner's
rejection which relies on Fukuoka. If the slider in Brezoczky
was modified to have a U-shape as taught by the contact surface
of Fukuoka, as stated by the examiner, it is clear that the
read/write head 17 would be formed on the flat trailing
surface 58 (see EA9). The surface 58 would not be curved. We
note that Fukuoka is one of those rare references that cures the
deficiency in the rejection of independent claim 1. Fukuoka
teaches embedding the magnetic pole tip within the pad (slider)
and it would therefore have been obvious in view of this teaching
to embed the pole tip in Brezoczky within the pad.
Alternatively, since obviousness is based on the collective
teachings of the references, it would have been obvious for the
entire pad in Fig. 7 of Fukuoka to be U-shaped, not just the
surface, since Brezoczky teaches that the entire pad can be
triangular. We treat the rejection of a dependent claim as
including an implicit rejection of the claim from which it
depends. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3.
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007