Appeal 2007-1281
Application 10/104,386
1 reasonable interpretation during examination. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech.
2 Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1369, 70 USPQ2d at 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
3 Claim 1 recites “wherein a bonding area of the slider of the reverse
4 type of HGA is provided on the opposite side of trace connections for the
5 traces.” Appellant does not provide a definition for the term “bonding
6 area.” (FF 2). As such, it is our view that the broadest reasonable
7 interpretation of “bonding area” can be any area where an attachment is
8 formed. (FF 3).
9 Furthermore, it is our view that claim 1 does not limit the “bonding
10 area” to only the opposite side from the trace connections for the traces. All
11 that is required by the claim language is that the bonding area include an
12 area opposite to the trace connections.
13
14 Anticipation Analysis
15 Based on our findings and those of the Examiner, it is our view Zeng
16 anticipates the subject matter of claim 1.
17 Appellant contends that “the description of [Zeng’s] Figure 12 does
18 not teach, suggest or disclose ‘…the bonding area of the slider (40) of the
19 reverse type of HGA is provided on the opposite side of the trace
20 connections,’ as specifically recited in the embodiment of claim 1.” (Br. 4)
21 (emphasis in original). Appellant further contends that “Zeng’s disclosure of
22 Figure 14 does not teach, suggest or disclose ‘…the bonding area of the
23 slider (40) of the reverse type HGA is provided on the opposite side of the
24 trace connections’ anywhere, as specifically recited in the embodiment of
25 claim 1.” (Br. 4-5) (emphasis in original). Appellant also contends that
26 “[a]n examination of [Zeng’s] Figure 11 shows both sets of slider
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013