Appeal No. 2003-0065
Application 09/491,284
Claim 32
Appellants argue that claim 32 distinguishes over Brezoczky
for the reasons mentioned for claim 10 (Br13). This does not
constitute a separate argument for patentability of claim 32.
The rejection of claim 32 is sustained.
Obviousness - Brezoczky and Kubo
Claim 27
The examiner finds that Brezoczky does not show the leading
edge of the pad spaced from the leading edge of the slider, but
that "Kubo et al shows a contact slider in Figure 10 that has a
leading edge of a pad 104 spaced from a leading edge of the
slider body due to the tapered portion 40" (EA5). The examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to provide a taper to
the pad in Brezoczky in order to space the leading edge of the
pad from the leading edge of the slider as doing so would permit
less contact area between the pad and the disk, thereby creating
less friction and wear (EA5-6).
Appellants argue that claim 27 recites "the leading edge of
the pad is spaced from the leading edge of the slider" and
Brezoczky fails to teach that the crystal material should be
spaced from the leading or trailing edge of the slider body
(Br13-14). It is argued that Kubo says nothing about a pad, much
less a pad with a leading edge spaced from the leading edge of
the slider.
- 19 -
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007