Ex Parte Khanna et al - Page 7


                Appeal 2006-3069                                                                                   
                Application 10/661,273                                                                             

                       Appellants contend that none of the relied-upon references teach or                         
                suggest establishing the distance between their respective motion limiting                         
                elements and respective suspension assemblies such that when the                                   
                suspension assemblies move during shock, the air bearing surface (ABS) is                          
                not disrupted, substantially or otherwise (Br 5).                                                  
                       In particular, Appellants argue that neither Kuroda nor Onda                                
                precludes the possibility of the air bearing surface being disrupted when                          
                their respective suspension assemblies move during [physical] shock to the                         
                hard drive. Thus, Appellants conclude that neither Kuroda nor Onda                                 
                inherently teaches the recited functional language of not disrupting the air                       
                bearing surface, substantially or otherwise (id.).                                                 
                       The Examiner disagrees. In particular, the Examiner explains how the                        
                functional language argued by Appellants reads on each of the Kuroda and                           
                Onda references, and also how the disputed functional language is being                            
                construed in light of Appellants’ Specification (Answer 11-13).                                    
                       In the Reply Brief, Appellants essentially restate the argument                             
                presented in the Brief. Appellants again contend that the Examiner has failed                      
                to show that either Kuroda or Onda inherently teaches the recited functional                       
                language (Reply Br. 1-4).                                                                          
                       After carefully considering all of the evidence before us, we find it                       
                unnecessary to reach the functional language argued by Appellants to affirm                        
                the Examiner on this record.  In particular, we note that our reviewing court                      
                has determined that the absence of a disclosure relating to function does not                      




                                                        7                                                          

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

Last modified: September 9, 2013