Ex Parte Arya et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 16, 2011

11035250 (B.P.A.I. May. 16, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/035,250 01/13/2005 Satya Prakash Arya HSJ920040230US2 3955
45552 7590 05/17/2011
HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP
123 WESTRIDGE DRIVE
WATSONVILLE, CA 95076
EXAMINER
ALANKO, ANITA KAREN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1713
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2011 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 and
XINZHI XING
________________

Appeal 2010-005085
Application 11/035,250
Technology Center 1700
________________

Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
LINDA M. GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judges.

GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005085
Application 11/035,250
 
2 
 
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's decision
rejecting claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-16, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6.
We AFFIRM.

Appellants claim an electrical lead suspension (ELS) (claim 7), a method of
making an ELS (claim 1), and a hard disk drive comprising an ELS (claim 13).
The ELS comprises a base-metal layer 380 having a plurality of openings 610, a
dielectric layer 370 above the base-metal layer, and a signal conductive layer
above the dielectric layer comprising a plurality of solder pad portions 710,
each of said plurality of solder pad portions aligned above said
dielectric layer covering said plurality of openings in said base-metal
layer, wherein the alignment of each of the plurality of solder pad
portions over the plurality of openings of said base-metal layer
reduces the solder pad to base-metal layer capacitance and increases
impedance between each of said plurality of solder pad portions and
said base-metal layer
(claim 7; Fig. 7).
Representative claim 7 reads as follows:
7. An electrical lead suspension (ELS) having openings in the
base-metal layer to increase the impedance comprising:
a base-metal layer having plurality of openings, said base-metal
layer comprising a single layer of metal as a foundation for said ELS
to reduce a plate capacitance of said ELS;
a dielectric layer above the base-metal layer, said dielectric
layer covering a portion of said base-metal layer and the plurality of
openings in said base-metal layer; and
Appeal 2010-005085
Application 11/035,250
 
3 
 
a signal conductive layer above the dielectric layer, said signal
conductive layer comprising a plurality of solder pad portions, each of
said plurality of solder pad portions aligned above said dielectric layer
covering said plurality of openings in said base-metal layer, wherein
the alignment of each of the plurality of solder pad portions over the
plurality of openings of said base-metal layer reduces the solder pad
to base-metal layer capacitance and increases impedance between
each of said plurality of solder pad portions and said base-metal layer.
The Examiner rejects claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Shiraishi (US 6,891,700 B2 issued May 10, 2005) and rejects claims
13-16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shiraishi.
Appellants' argument against these rejections is directed solely to the
representative claim 7 limitation quoted above (i.e., at the third full paragraph on
page 2) which is a limitation required by all appealed claims. Therefore, the
appealed claims will stand or fall with claim 7 according to the success or failure
of this argument.
We will sustain the Examiner's rejections for the reasons expressed in the
Answer and below.

Appellants argue that Shiraishi does not teach the claim 7 limitation quoted
above wherein each of a plurality of solder pad portions are aligned above a
plurality of openings in a base-metal layer (App. Br. 10-11).

In response, the Examiner acknowledges that Shiraishi's pad portions 124a,
124b are not aligned above openings in the base-metal layer but finds that pad
Appeal 2010-005085
Application 11/035,250
 
4 
 
portions 123a, 123b are aligned above such openings thereby satisfying the
limitation under review (Ans. 5-6).
Appellants do not contest this finding by the Examiner. Instead, Appellants
reply to the Examiner's Answer by submitting that their claim limitation cannot be
anticipated by Shiraishi's pad portions 124a, 124b since these pad portions are not
aligned above openings in the base-metal layer (Reply Br. 3). This reply does not
address, and therefore does not show error in, the Examiner's rationale for finding
Appellants' claim limitation to be satisfied by Shiraishi.

For the reasons set forth above and in the Answer, we sustain each of the
Examiner's § 102 and § 103 rejections of the appealed claims.
The decision of the Examiner 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.

AFFIRMED
bar