Appeal 2007-0936
Application 10/455,507
1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“during examination proceedings, claims are given
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.”).
However, in the instant case, when we look to the Specification for context,
we find no express or implied definition for the claimed “spring region.”
Instead, Appellants broadly disclose “[t]he proximal end of the load beam
includes a base plate and a spring region nearby on the load beam”
(Specification 4, ll. 12-13, emphasis added). In describing the related art,
Appellants reveal that prior art disk drives have “a spring region near the
base plate on the load beam, the thickness of which is thinner than that of
other areas, producing a force to help maintain the flying SLD [slider]
stability” (Specification 2, ll. 2-4).
After carefully considering the evidence before us, we agree with the
Examiner that “a load beam having a rigid body, a proximal and a distal
end, and a spring region between the proximal end and the rigid body”
broadly but reasonably reads on the Imamura reference. We agree with the
Examiner that the amount of resilience contained in the claimed “spring
region” is not defined in the Specification nor depicted in the instant
drawings. In particular, we find Appellants have disavowed that any
material with resilient properties is the equivalent of a “spring region” (see
Reply Br. 2, i.e., “Just because a material may display resilience does not
mean it is the equivalent of a spring region as described in embodiments of
the present application”). While Appellants have argued that the term
“spring region” is “easily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art,” we
nevertheless find Appellants have failed to provide sufficient evidence in the
record to conclusively establish the plain meaning of the disputed term (see
Reply Br. 3, ¶ 2).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013