Ex Parte Arya

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 6, 2011

11144002 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 6, 2011)

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.
11/144,002 06/02/2005 Satya Prakash Arya HSJ920050127US1 8859
45552 7590 09/06/2011
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
09/06/2011 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 2009-011196
Application 11/144,002
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

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

1
This Appeal is related to Appeal No. 2009-011119 (Application No.
11/143,273), as Appellant notes on page 2 of the Appeal Brief in that case.
Appeal 2009-011196
Application 11/144,002

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a method for using a stainless
steel framework in a head gimbal assembly of a hard disk drive (Spec. ¶
[0001]).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for utilizing a stainless steel framework to change
the resonance frequency range of 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 stainless steel framework between said flexure
nose portion and said head gimbal assembly for changing the
resonance vibration frequency of said flexure nose portion.

REJECTIONS and ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite.
Appellant’s Appeal Brief presents no argument with respect to the
indefiniteness rejection. Although Appellant contends the rejection is
improper in the Reply Brief, Appellant makes no argument to support this
contention (Reply Br. 2). Therefore, since Appellant has not shown error,
we affirm the rejection under § 112, second paragraph.
Appeal 2009-011196
Application 11/144,002

3
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
The Examiner rejected claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Albrecht (US 6,052,258).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding Albrecht’s stainless
steel layer 154 is a stainless steel framework, as recited in claim 1, since the
Examiner incorrectly identifies Albrecht’s tab 254 as analogous to item 312
in Figure 5 of Appellant’s Specification. Appellant asserts Albrecht’s tab
254 is actually analogous to flexure nose 310 of Appellant’s Figure 5 (App.
Br. 11). Appellant further contends the Examiner has not shown a
framework “between” a flexure nose portion and head gimbal assembly, as
recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 12). We disagree.
The Examiner finds Albrecht meets each element of Appellant’s claim
1. Particularly, the Examiner finds Albrecht discloses a portion of stainless
steel framework between a flexure nose portion and head gimbal assembly.
(Ans. 4, 12) Although Appellant asserts the Examiner incorrectly compares
certain elements in Albrecht’s Figure 7 and Appellant’s Figure 5, but
Appellant does not explain how this relates to the claims (App. Br. 11; Reply
Br. 3-5). For example, Appellant argues Albrecht’s tab 254 is analogous to
flexure nose 310, not item 312, of Appellant’s Figure 5, but does not explain
how this shows Albrecht fails to disclose any particular claim element (App.
Br. 11). Additionally, Appellant merely contends Albrecht does not disclose
a framework “between” a flexure nose portion and head gimbal assembly,
as claimed, providing no explanation to support this contention (App. Br.
12).
Albrecht, therefore, anticipates claim 1, and claims 2-25, which were
not separately argued.
Appeal 2009-011196
Application 11/144,002

4
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
affirmed.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

kis