Appeal No. 2003-1173
Application No. 09/991,855
Appellants take the “leading edge” of the rail in Inumochi to be the extreme edge of the
slider shown in Figure 1 of the reference; i.e., “ridge 8 is spaced distance L1 from the
leading edge of the rail.” (Brief at 9.)
Claim 40 recites that each of the rails has a leading edge that is part of a curved
surface and faces into a general direction of relative motion between the slider and the
medium. As shown in Figures 1 through 4 of Inumochi, and further described at
columns 2 and 3 of the reference, the rails are comprised of air-bearing surface 2 and
taper surface 3, which has a circular or parabolic profile. The leading portion of taper
surface 3 meets the requirements of the claimed “leading edge.” Claim 40 further
requires that “the leading edge is narrower than the trailing edge,” but does not specify
the sections of the leading edge and the trailing edge that are to form the basis for the
comparison. A dimension of taper surface 3, as shown in Figure 2A of Inumochi, is
narrower in width that the trailing edge (near magnetic head 4; Fig. 1) of the rail.
Further, we consider appellants’ observations with respect to claim 61 to be
based on an overly narrow interpretation of the language. Appellants argue that
Inumochi “discloses a rail in which the leading edge extends to the outer side surface of
the slider body.” (Brief at 9.) The claim does not distinguish, however, over the leading
portion of taper surface 3 disclosed by Inumochi, which, due to its circular or parabolic
profile, does not extend to the outer side surface of the slider body.
We thus sustain the Section 102 rejection of claims 40, 48-50, 54-61, 63, 64, 67,
and 68 as being anticipated by Inumochi.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007