Ex Parte Arya

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 1, 2010

11144001 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 1, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/144,001 06/02/2005 Satya Prakash Arya HSJ920040389US1 8861
45552 7590 12/01/2010
HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP
123 WESTRIDGE DRIVE
WATSONVILLE, CA 95076
EXAMINER
DRAVININKAS, ADAM B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2010 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte SATYA PRAKASH ARYA
____________________

Appeal 2009-007991
Application 11/144,001
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007991
Application 11/144,001

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to utilizing a web of polyimide
material to dampen vibrations in a head gimbal assembly of a hard disk drive
(Spec. ¶¶ [0029]-[0031]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for utilizing a suspension flexure polyimid[e]2
material web to dampen a flexure nose portion of a head gimbal
assembly comprising:

providing a slider coupled with said head gimbal assembly, said
slider having a read/write head element thereon;

providing said flexure nose portion coupled with said head
gimbal assembly; and

providing said suspension flexure polyimid material web
between said flexure nose portion and said head gimbal
assembly for damping said flexure nose portion.

REFERENCE
Albrecht US 6,052,258 Apr. 18, 2000

The Examiner rejected claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Albrecht.
With respect to independent claims 1, 9, 17, and 25, Appellant
contends Albrecht fails to teach providing a suspension flexure polyimide

2 The Examiner interprets the recitation of “polyimid” to be a “minor error”
intending to read “polyamide.” See Ans. 3. However, this term should
actually be “polyimide,” cf. Appellants’ originally filed Specification ¶
[0001] and claim 1 (both setting forth “polyimide”).
Appeal 2009-007991
Application 11/144,001

3
material web between a flexure nose portion and a head gimbal assembly for
damping the flexure nose portion (App. Br. 10-11). The Examiner finds
Albrecht discloses an insulating layer 152 comprised of polyimide, which
includes a portion 212 located between a flexure nose portion and a head
gimbal assembly (Ans. 4, 14).
Appellant argues the insulating layer 152 is not between the flexure
nose portion and head gimbal assembly because layer 152 lies between other
layers 150 and 154 (App. Br. 11). However, as the Examiner explains, even
though Albrecht’s insulating layer is located between layers 150 and 154 (in
a vertical dimension), “at least a portion” of the insulating layer is located
between the portion identified as the flexure nose portion and the head
gimbal assembly (emphasis added) (Ans. 14). The Examiner correctly finds
the claims “do not restrict the polyimide layer from being layered between
two other layers, but only require it to be located between the flexure nose
portion . . . and the head gimbal assembly” (emphasis added) (Ans. 14).
Thus, Albrecht reads on Appellant’s claim limitation of “providing said
suspension flexure polyimid material web between said flexure nose portion
and said head gimbal assembly.”
Therefore, Albrecht anticipates claims 1, 9, 17, and 25, in addition to
claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-24, which depend therefrom and are not separately
argued.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-25 is affirmed.

Appeal 2009-007991
Application 11/144,001

4
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(v).

AFFIRMED

KIS

HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP
123 WESTRIDGE DRIVE
WATSONVILLE, CA 95076