Ex Parte Wong et al - Page 2



          Appeal No. 2006-0513                                                        
          Application No. 09/741,684                                                  

          material to a metal bonding pad of the suspension.  More                    
          particularly, a slider bonding pad, which initially has no                  
          bonding substance, is coupled to the suspension by the reflowing            
          of the bonding substance on the suspension bonding pad, thereby             
          coupling the suspension bonding pad to the slider bonding pad.              
               Claim 7 is illustrative of the invention and reads as                  
          follows:                                                                    
               7. A suspension comprising:                                            
               a suspension bonding pad for electrically bonding a magnetic           
          head terminal, wherein said bonding pad includes a metal pad                
          having a bonding substance applied as a surface finishing                   
          material, the surface finishing material being heat treated prior           
          to bonding to a surface; and                                                
               a slider bonding pad initially without bonding substance               
          coupled to said suspension such that the bonding substance on               
          said suspension bonding pad is reflowed so as to electrically               
          couple the suspension bonding pad and the slider bonding pad.               
               The Examiner relies on the following prior art:                        
          Ainslie et al. (Ainslie)      4,761,699           Aug. 02, 1988             
          Albrecht et al. (Albrecht)    5,821,494           Oct. 13, 1998             
               Claims 7-11 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)            
          as being anticipated by either one of Ainslie or Albrecht.                  
          Claims 12 stands finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as               
          being unpatentable over either one of Ainslie or Albrecht.                  




                                          2                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007