Appeal 2007-0683
Application 10/121,772
i.e., the actuator arms 12a and 12b and the flexure assemblies 13a and 13b
are identical is confirmed by Nakanishi’s disclosure which states “[i]n the
other respects, the head supporting structure 15 is substantially identical to
the head supporting structure 16.” (Nakanishi, col. 7, ll. 44-46).
In the third embodiment, which is the most pertinent to Appellants’
claimed invention, the oscillation characteristics of the head structures 15
and 16 are made different by slightly varying the structural characteristics of
the mounting portions 12a’ and 12b’ of the actuator arm components.
(Nakanishi, Figures 12A and 12B). Again, as with the other two
embodiments, since the differing oscillation characteristics of the head
supporting structures are attributed solely to the different structural
configuration of the mounting portion of the actuator arm assemblies, it is
reasonable to conclude that the other components of the head supporting
structures, i.e., the flexure arms 13a, 13b, and the core sliders 14a, 14b, are
“substantially identical” to each other.
With the above analysis in mind, it is apparent to us that the third
embodiment of Nakanishi satisfies all of the claimed requirements of
independent claims 1, 12, and 19. We find in this third embodiment of
Nakanishi an actuator assembly having a body portion (hub 9), first and
second actuator arm assemblies which depend from the body portion (hub 9)
at the proximal end thereof (12a’-1, 12b’-1) and distal ends which define
mounting portions (12a’, 12b’). Further, the arm assemblies are
substantially identical (the ring shaped proximal end portions) except for the
differently configured, i.e., rectangularly and trapezoidally shaped, mounting
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013