Ex parte Berding

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 23, 2001

08705798 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 23, 2001)

Application for patent filed August 30, 1996, entitled1
"Head Suspension Having Reduced Torsional Vibration."
- 1 -
The opinion in support of the decision being
entered today was not written for publication
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte KEITH R. BERDING
and KENNETH F. YOUNG

Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,7981

ON BRIEF

Before KRASS, JERRY SMITH, and BARRETT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-19. Claim 3 is
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 2 -
canceled. Claims 20-26 have been withdrawn pursuant to a
restriction requirement.
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to a transducer
suspension for a storage drive system which is bendable in a
vertical direction for holding the transducer adjacent to the
media, but is torsionally stiff about a longitudinal axis for
quicker access times and reduced noise and errors. A brace is
used to provide torsional stiffness.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A suspension for an information storage system head,
comprising:
a beam extending generally in a longitudinal
direction from a mounting end to a transducer end and
extending further in a lateral direction than in a
direction perpendicular to said lateral and longitudinal
directions, said mounting end being held relatively fixed
in said perpendicular direction with at least said
transducer end being actuable in at least one of said
lateral and longitudinal directions, said beam defining a
laterally extensive region of perpendicular flexibility
with laterally opposed sections of said region being
attached to a torsionally stiff brace extending much
further in said lateral direction than a longitudinal
extent of said attachment to said sections, with said
brace longitudinally dividing said region of
perpendicular flexibility, wherein said beam has a
flexibility in moving said transducer end relative to
said mounting end which is substantially greater in said
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 3 -
perpendicular direction than in said lateral and
longitudinal directions and has a preferentially
increased torsional stiffness about a longitudinal axis
compared to a bending stiffness in said perpendicular
direction.
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
A translation was provided by Appellants' "Information2
Disclosure Statement per 37 C.F.R. §1.98" (part Paper No. 9)
filed September 24, 1998, and resubmitted in the "Supplemental
Information Disclosure Statement per 37 C.F.R. §1.98" (Paper
No. 12), filed October 26, 1998.
A translation of Aoyanagi has been prepared by the3
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and a copy accompanies this
opinion.
- 4 -
The Examiner relies on the following references:
U.S. Patent
Kohso et al. (Kohso) 5,313,353 May 17, 1994
Japanese Laid Open (Kokai) Patent Applications
Kikuchi et al. (Kikuchi ) 59-213066 December 1, 19842
Aoyanagi 4-181575 June 29, 19923
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 11-13, and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kikuchi.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 19 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Aoyanagi.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 11-14, 18, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Kohso.
Claims 4, 6, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Aoyanagi.
We refer to the final rejection (Paper No. 8) (pages
referred to as "FR__") and the examiner's answer (Paper
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 5 -
No. 16) (pages referred to as "EA__") for a statement of the
Examiner's position, and to the brief (Paper No. 15) (pages
referred to as "Br__") for a statement of Appellants'
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Kikuchi
Claims 1, 2, 7-9, and 11
Appellants argue that elements 12a in Kikuchi are "low
rigidity parts" and cannot be characterized as "torsionally
stiff braces" as found by the Examiner. It is argued that
"claim 1 not only defines a torsionally stiff brace, but that
the beam that the torsionally stiff brace is attached to has
'a preferentially increased torsional stiffness about a
longitudinal axis of the beam compared to a bending stiffness
in the perpendicular direction'" (Br6). It is argued that
torsional motion will cause one end of low rigidity
section 12a to open slightly and the other end of 12a to close
slightly; thus, Kikuchi actually has a reduced torsional
stiffness due to sections 12a (Br6-7). It is argued that
while lateral bending of the low rigidity part 12a is
difficult, twisting about a long axis is not, and the parts
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 6 -
12a do not reduce the torsional flexibility of the beam
(Br7-8).
The Examiner finds that "[t]he second purpose of
brace 12a [in Kikuchi] is to reduce or prevent beam 12 from
being torsionally flexible, e.g. twisting or turning" (EA8)
because otherwise the transducer 11 would not fly properly.
We find nothing in Kikuchi to support this finding.
The Examiner further finds that since "braces 12a cannot
bend up or down as easily along a lateral direction, they are
torsionally stiff as required by the claims" (EA9).
We agree with the Examiner's conclusion, if not his
reasoning. The structural analysis of torsion is difficult
with anything other than cylindrical and cylindrical shell
members symmetrically located with respect to the torsional
axis. Nevertheless, for empirical reasons, we find that the
bent sections 12a inherently provide increased torsional
stiffness. The torsional stiffness around the longitudinal
axis is related to the cross-sectional area of the beam in the
transverse plane which resists the twisting. Consider two
cross-sectional areas: one through the flat portion of
beam 12 and one through the bent portion 12a as shown below.
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 7 -

Since the cross-sectional area on the bent portion 12a is
greater than the cross-sectional area through the flat
portion, it will undergo less deformation for the same amount
of torsion. Thus, the bent section 12a has increased
torsional stiffness. Kikuchi's description of sections 12a as
"low rigidity sections" means that the sections have low
rigidity to bending of the end of the beam in a perpendicular
direction, not that they have low rigidity in all bending or
twisting directions.
Appellants argue that Kikuchi does not teach "said beam
defining a laterally extensive region of perpendicular
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 8 -
flexibility with laterally opposed sections of said region
being attached to a torsionally stiff brace . . ., with said
brace longitudinally dividing said region of perpendicular
flexibility" because the low rigidity sections 12a in Kikuchi
are connected to high rigidity sections, thus teaching away
from a brace that joins flexible sections (Br8).
The Examiner finds that beam 12 defines a laterally
extensive region of perpendicular flexibility with laterally
opposed sections being attached to torsionally stiff braces
12a (FR2; EA4) and (EA9): "The region of perpendicular
flexibility is the regions of beam 12 not encompassed by
braces 12a."
We are not persuaded by the Examiner's reasoning. The
embodiment of figure 9 is expected to have the same action and
effect as the embodiment of figure 5. Elements 12a are low
rigidity sections and the flat plate sections of supporting
plate 12 are high rigidity sections. The high rigidity flat
plate sections of 12 do not bend and, therefore, are not a
"laterally extensive region of perpendicular flexibility," as
found by the Examiner. Low rigidity section 12a allows the
plate 12 to readily bend in a perpendicular direction and is
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 9 -
"a laterally extensive region of perpendicular flexibility."
However, it is not reasonable to consider section 12a both
"a laterally extensive region of perpendicular flexibility"
and "a torsionally stiff brace" because the brace is claimed
as "attached" to the region of perpendicular flexibility.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites "said brace longitudinally
dividing said region of perpendicular flexibility" and section
12a, which is itself a region of perpendicular flexibility,
does not divide a region of perpendicular flexibility. For
these reasons, the Examiner erred in finding claim 1 to be
anticipated. The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 7-9,
and 11 is reversed.
Claims 12, 13, and 18
For the reasons stated in connection with claim 1, we
find that the low rigidity sections 12a in Kikuchi "provides
an increased torsional stiffness about said X direction," as
recited in claim 12.
Appellants argue that Kikuchi does not teach "said beam
being flexible in a plurality of sections that are spaced
apart in said X and Y directions and joined by a brace
extending in said Y direction," as recited in claim 12.
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 10 -
The Examiner does not address this argument.
Kikuchi clearly does not disclose a "plurality of
sections that are spaced apart" in a Y direction like the
spaced apart strips 48 and 50 spaced apart by opening 46 in
Appellants' figure 1, much less sections spaced apart in a Y
direction joined by a brace. Accordingly, the Examiner erred
in finding claim 12 to be anticipated. The anticipation
rejection of claims 12, 13, and 18 over Kikuchi is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Aoyanagi
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, and 10
The Examiner finds that "Figure 1 [of Aoyanagi] also
shows beam 2a defining a laterally extensive region of
perpendicular flexibility with laterally opposed sections of
the extensive region being attached to torsionally stiff
brace(s) 4 . . . which longitudinally divide the region of
perpendicular flexibility" (FR3; EA5). The Examiner states
that "[i]t is a curious situation as to why applicants state
that the opening (void) of Aoyanagi is not a laterally
extensive region of perpendicular flexibility when figure 1 of
the instant application shows opening 46 which defines the
laterally extensive region of perpendicular flexibility as
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 11 -
defined by applicants' specification" (FR8). The Examiner
further states that "not unlike appellants['] claimed and
disclosed invention, Aoyanagi torsionally supports the
flexible spring 2a by way of reinforcement plates or
torsionally stiff braces to enable a vibration-proof property
of spring 2a" (EA9-10).
Appellants argue that a void has no solid matter, and
thus cannot have flexibility (Br11). It is argued that the
opening can increase the perpendicular flexibility of a hinge
region, such as 66 in figure 3, but would not create a
perpendicularly flexible region if formed in the area between
vertical flanges 40 and 42 in figure 1 (Br11). It is argued
that because of the reinforcement plate 4, "Aoyanagi does not
have a laterally extensive region of perpendicular flexibility
divided by a brace as defined in claim 1" (Br12).
We agree with Appellants' arguments and find the
Examiner's findings and reasons unpersuasive. Aoyanagi
teaches a "press bending part (9) of said press spring (2a)"
(translation, p. 3), which we find is "said beam defining a
laterally extensive region of perpendicular flexibility." The
"[r]einforcement plate (4) . . . is provided at the areas
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 12 -
except press bending part (9) of said press spring (2a)"
(translation, p. 3). The press spring 2a/reinforcement
plate 4 assembly in figure 1 of Aoyanagi is clearly intended
to bend only at the press bending part 9. The area of press
spring 2a covered by the reinforcement plate 4 is designed to
be inflexible because it reinforces and prevents resonance of
the press spring 2a. The edges of the plate 4 act like
flanges 40 and 42 in Appellants' figure 1 to prevent
perpendicular flexibility; for this reason, the Examiner erred
in finding that the portion of press spring 2a covered by
reinforcement plate 4 includes a region of perpendicular
flexibility. Since plate 4 comes up to the press bending
portion 9 at the opposed edges, and is considered torsionally
stiff because it is intended to prevent tilt (translation,
p. 2), Aoyanagi shows "laterally opposed sections of said
region [of perpendicular flexibility] being attached to a
torsionally stiff brace." However, Aoyanagi does not disclose
"said brace longitudinally dividing said region of
perpendicular flexibility," as recited in claim 1, because the
brace is only on one side of the press bending portion 9.
Therefore, the Examiner erred in finding claim 1 to be
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 13 -
anticipated and we find no other way the rejection can be
sustained. The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7,
9, and 10 over Aoyanagi is reversed.
Claims 12, 16, and 19
Appellants argue that Aoyanagi does not teach "said beam
being flexible in a plurality of sections that are spaced
apart in said X and Y directions and joined by a brace
extending in said Y direction," as recited in claim 12.
The Examiner does not address this argument.
Aoyanagi discloses a press bending portion 9 which
extends across the width of the press spring 2a. Thus,
Aoyanagi does not teach a plurality of flexible sections
spaced apart in the Y direction and joined by a brace. The
Examiner erred in finding claim 12 to be anticipated. The
anticipation rejection of claims 12, 16, and 19 over Aoyanagi
is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Kohso
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 11
The Examiner finds that beam 3 in figure 5 defines a
laterally extensive region of perpendicular flexibility with
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 14 -
laterally opposed sections attached to torsionally stiff
braces 3-1B and 3-2B and that braces 3-1B and 3-2B
longitudinally divide the region of perpendicular flexibility
(FR4; EA6).
Appellants agree with the Examiner that the strips
disposed on opposite sides of opening 3-2A in Kohso form a
laterally extensive region of perpendicular flexibility, but
argue that Kohso does not teach a brace that longitudinally
divides those regions, as defined in claim 1 (Br14). It is
argued that rib portions 3-1B and 3-2B are disposed at
longitudinal ends of the strips rather than longitudinally
dividing those strips and that the outer flanges that extend
longitudinally up to and beyond rib portions 3-1B and 3-2B are
not laterally extensive regions of perpendicular flexibility
(Br14).
The Examiner asserts that "figure 5 of Kohso et al[.]
shows torsionally stiff braces 3-1B and 3-2B longitudinally
dividing those regions [of perpendicular flexibility]" (EA10),
without addressing Appellants' arguments. The Examiner says
that Appellant seems to suggest that the brace spans the
opening, but that the claims lack this limitation (EA10).
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 15 -
The load beam plate spring portion 3-2' in figure 5,
consisting of the two longitudinal strips on either side of
the opening 3-2A, defines a "laterally extensive region of
perpendicular flexibility," like the laterally spaced
strips 48 and 50 in Appellants' figure 1. The load beam
support portion 3-1' having the upturned flanges along the
edges does not define a "laterally extensive region of
perpendicular flexibility" because the flanges are intended to
prevent perpendicular flexibility like the flanges 40 and 42
in Appellants' figure 1. Because the rib portions 3-1B and
3-2B are not within the region of perpendicular flexibility
they do constitute a brace, "said brace longitudinally
dividing said region of perpendicular flexibility," as
claimed. For a brace to longitudinally divide the region of
perpendicular flexibility, the load beam plate spring portion
3-2', it would have to extend across the opening 3-2A to
attach to the two strips. The Examiner erred in finding
anticipation. The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 9,
and 11 is reversed.
Claims 12-14, 18, and 19
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 16 -
Appellants argue (Br14-15):
Kohso et al. do not teach regions of perpendicular
flexibility that are spaced apart in both X and Y
directions. While the strips of Kohso et al. are spaced
apart in what may be termed the Y direction, no X
direction spacing is apparent. Moreover, no brace is
shown in that reference joining such regions of
perpendicular flexibility that are spaced apart in both X
and Y directions. The torsionally stiff brace defined in
claim 12 would have less ability to reduce longitudinal
torsional vibration of the beam, if it were not joined to
regions of perpendicular flexibility spaced apart in both
X and Y directions as shown in Kohso et al.
The Examiner does not address these arguments.
In the limitation of "said beam being flexible in a
plurality of sections that are spaced apart in said X and Y
directions and joined by a brace extending in said Y
direction" we interpret "spaced apart in said X . . .
direction" to mean that a brace separates flexible sections
along the X direction; e.g., laterally spaced strip 48 in
Appellants' figure 1 is divided into two sections spaced apart
in the X direction by brace 53 and the laterally spaced strip
160 in Appellants' figure 8 is divided into several sections
spaced apart in the X direction by braces 166. Kohso has a
pair of strips spaced apart in the Y direction, but the strips
are not spaced apart in the X direction because a brace would
be required. Thus, the Examiner erred in finding
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 17 -
anticipation. The anticipation rejection of claims 12-14, 18,
and 19 is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Aoyanagi
The obviousness rejection of claims 4, 6, 15, and 17 does
not cure the deficiencies of the anticipation rejection of
claims 1 and 12 over Aoyanagi. The obviousness rejection of
claims 4, 6, 15, and 17 is reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejections of claims 1, 2, and 4-19 are reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 18 -
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-2399
Application 08/705,798
- 19 -
Mark Lauer
7041 Koll Center Parkway
Suite 280
Pleasanton, CA 94566