Appeal 2006-3069
Application 10/661,273
The Appellants disagree (Br. 8). Appellants point to another portion of
the Specification for descriptive support:
[t]he distance ‘C’ preferably is sufficiently small that in the
event of a shock, the suspension 26 remains close enough to the
associated disk 20 to avoid disrupting the air bearing between
the slider 28 and disk 20.
(Specification at page 5, lines 19-21).
The Examiner responds that the disclosure at page 5, lines 19-21 of
the Specification does not preclude a disruption of the air bearing surface
(ABS) if the hard drive is subjected to sufficient physical shock (Answer
14).
We begin our analysis by noting that the Specification further
discloses:
Stated differently, if the suspension 26 is constrained by the
motion limiting element of the present invention to not move
more than a distance “C” relative to the disk, the slider 28 will
not be peeled away from the disk. Instead, within the distance
“C” the operating vacuum between the slider 28 and disk 20
will remain strong enough to maintain an operationally
sufficient attraction between the slider 28 and disk 20
[emphasis added].
(Specification, p. 5, l. 21 through p. 6, l. 2).
After carefully considering the evidence before us, we conclude that
Appellants’ claims 1 and 17 are not misdescriptive of the aforementioned
portions of the Specification that disclose: (1) preventing slider 28 from
being “peeled away from the disk,” and (2) maintaining “an operationally
sufficient attraction between the slider 28 and disk 20.” (Id.). Therefore, we
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013