Appeal 2007-0936
Application 10/455,507
We acknowledge that Appellants have disclosed prior art disk drives
having “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” (see Specification 2, ll. 2-4, emphasis
added). However, we decline to read limitations associated with the prior art
into the instant claims. We note that patentability is based upon the claims.
“It is the claims that measure the invention.” SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec.
Corp., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121, 227 USPQ 577, 585 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc).
Here, we find the claimed “load beam” broadly but reasonably reads
on the substantially similar structure of “carriage 5,” as shown in Imamura’s
Figs. 3 and 4A. Specifically, we find that Imamura’s “carriage 5” has a rigid
body section (i.e., between the trapezoidal hole and the side that attaches to
support spring 3), a proximal end near “shaft 6,” and a distal end at the
“carriage 5” end that attaches to “support spring 3” (see Imamura, Figs. 3
and 4A).
We further agree with the Examiner that the instant claimed “spring
region” broadly but reasonably reads on the substantially similar structure of
“access arm 2,” as shown in Imamura’s Figs. 3 and 4A. Indeed, when we
again look to the Specification for context, we find that Appellants “radius or
spring region 22” (Fig. 4.1) is located in the same region as Imamura’s
“access arm 2” (Fig. 3), i.e., adjacent to the sides of the hole shown in both
Appellants’ Fig. 4.1 and Imamura’s Fig. 3. We further note that Appellants
disclose the “rigid body 23” portion of “load beam 30” is located between
the hole section and “distal end 25” (see instant Fig. 4.1). That is, the region
defined by the hole in Inamura is arguably a “spring region” for the same
reason the region defined by the hole in Appellants’ invention is a spring
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013