Ex Parte Boutaghou et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 29, 2003

09100698 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2003)

-1–
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication in a law journal
and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte ZINE-EDDINE BOUTAGHOU and
PETER RAYMOND SEGAR

Appeal No. 2001-1268
Application No. 09/100,698

ON BRIEF

Before KRASS, FLEMING and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claim 3, the sole claim on appeal.
The invention is directed to a disc drive head slider. In
particular, the data transducer is supported by an air bearing
structure in operative, non-contacting engagement with the
surface of the rigid magnetic recording disc. It is said that
Appeal No. 2001-1268
Application No. 09/100,698
-2–
the advantage over the prior art lies in the reduction of static
friction, or “stiction,” caused by formation of a liquid meniscus
between the air bearing structure and the disc surface, due to
the unavoidable presence of water vapor within the disc drive
housing. While the prior art sought to overcome the stiction
problem by adding landing pads extending beyond the air bearing
surfaces in the direction of the disc, reducing contact area
between the head assembly and the disc, this also served to limit
the proximity of the transducer on the head assembly to the disc.
In attempts to increase proximity of transducer to disc, the
height of the landing pads was reduced, but this increased
stiction.
While prior art designers were faced with mutually
contradictory alternatives for allowing for increased areal
recording density by lowering the height of the landing pads, or
reducing the stiction by raising the height of the landing pads,
the instant invention is said to overcome this mutually exclusive
requirement by decoupling the overall height of the landing pads
from the extent by which the landing pads extend below the air
bearing surfaces. This is accomplished by providing recessed
surfaces from which the landing pads extend. Accordingly, the
overall height of the landing pad features can be optimized to
Appeal No. 2001-1268
Application No. 09/100,698
1Our understanding of the Okada reference is based on an
English translation thereof prepared for the United States Patent
and Trademark Office, a copy of which is attached hereto.
-3–
reduce stiction caused by formation of a liquid meniscus at the
landing pads, while simultaneously still allowing the height by
which the landing pads extend below the air bearing surfaces to
be optimized for increased areal recording density.
Claim 3 is reproduced as follows:
3. A disc drive, comprising:
a slider supportable over a rotatable disc; and
stiction reduction means for reducing stiction between the
slider and the rotatable disc.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Best et al. (Best) 5,285,337 Feb. 8, 1994
(Japanese Patent)1
Okada et al. 4-341984 Nov. 27, 1992
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as
anticipated by either one of Best or Okada.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
Appeal No. 2001-1268
Application No. 09/100,698
-4–
OPINION
With regard to Best, the examiner points out that Best
discloses a disc drive, as seen in Figures 1 and 2, comprising a
slider, as in Figures 8A-D, supportable over a rotatable disc 16,
and a stiction reducing means, identified as elements 120, 122,
132, 134, 136, 138 and 140.
Since the stiction reducing means is set forth in instant
claim 3 in “mean plus function” language, the examiner compares
the structure of Best with the instant disclosure, concluding
that the Best arrangement of air bearing surfaces 110, 112 that
are provided to fly the slider with the air bearing surfaces
above the disc surface, and a plurality of landing pads 120, 122,
132, 134, 136, 138, 140, each having a contact surface which
extends by a first height below the ABS’s toward the disc
surface, and extends by a second height greater than the first
height from a recessed surface farther from the disc surface than
the ABS’s (Figures 8A-9F), is structurally equivalent to
appellants’ invention.
With regard to Okada, the examiner points out that Okada
discloses a disc drive having a slider 1 supportable over a
rotatable disc 11 and stiction reducing means 9. The
Appeal No. 2001-1268
Application No. 09/100,698
-5–
corresponding structure to the stiction reducing means in Okada
is said by the examiner to be the air bearing surfaces 5 provided
to fly the slider with the air bearing surfaces and transducer
above the disc surface, and the plurality of landing pads, 9,
each having a contact surface which extends by a first height
below the ABS’s toward the disc surface, and by a second height
greater than the first height from a recessed surface farther
from the disc surface than the ABS’s (Figures 1 and 4).
Accordingly, the examiner concludes that the stiction reducing
means in Okada is structurally equivalent to that disclosed by
the instant invention.
Appellants do not dispute that the applied references each
shows a disc drive, a supportable slider and a stiction reducing
means for reducing stiction between the slider and the rotatable
disc. Rather, appellants invoke In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189,
29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) and conclude that since the
stiction reducing means is in “means plus function” format, the
instant claimed elements must be construed as the mechanisms
explicitly disclosed or “equivalents thereof.” Appellants urge
that the claimed “stiction reducing means” must be construed as
the structure shown in Figures 4-3, 5-1 and 5-2 of the instant
application and as described in the instant specification.
Appeal No. 2001-1268
Application No. 09/100,698
-6–
In accordance with Donaldson, in considering means plus
function language, one must look to the specification and
interpret that language in light of the corresponding structure,
method or other acts described therein and equivalents thereof to
the extent that the specification provides such disclosure. The
instant claim language “stiction reduction means for reducing
stiction...” is clearly “means plus function” language, in
accordance with Donaldson. No specific structure is set forth in
the claim so we must look to the disclosure to ascertain the
meaning of “stiction reduction means for reducing stiction...”
and equivalents thereof. Appellants and the examiner are in
agreement on this.
Turning to the disclosure to identify the corresponding
structure for this “means plus function” element, we find, as
argued by appellants at the top of page 11 in the principal
brief, that this claim element is properly construed as the
structure shown in Figures 4-3, 5-1 and 5-2 of the application
and described in associated portions of the specification. In
further describing the structure, at that portion of the
principal brief, appellants point out that Figures 4-3, 5-1 and
5-2, describing the claimed element, explicitly show a slider (60
in FIGS. 5-1 and 5-2) for supporting a data transducer (70 in
Appeal No. 2001-1268
Application No. 09/100,698
-7–
FIG. 5-2) in a cooperative, non-contacting arrangement above a
disc surface of a rotating data storage disc (8 in FIG. 4-3)
comprising a disc facing surface (58 in FIG. 4-3, 72/74 in FIGS.
5-1 and 5-2) having four corners, an arrangement of air bearing
surfaces (38 in FIG. 4-3, 38/68 in FIG. 5-1, 66/68 in FIG. 5-2)
formed on said disc facing surface at a first height (height from
surface 58 to surface 38 in FIG. 4-3, and height from surfaces
72/74 to surfaces 38/68 in FIG. 5-1) spaced from said disc facing
surface, and at least four landing pads (62/64 in FIGS. 5-1 and
5-2) formed on said disc-facing surface, at least one each near a
respective one of said four corners, to a second height (height
from surface 58 to lower surface of element 52b in FIG. 4-3,
and height from surfaces 72/74 to lower surface of elements 62/64
in FIG. 5-1) greater than the first height, wherein the ratio of
the difference between the first and second heights to the first
height is approximately 1:10 (as shown by the figures, and as
explicitly noted in the specification at page 10, lines 16-20).
We will accept this description as identification of the
structure corresponding to the claimed “stiction reduction means
for reducing stiction...” and hold that such corresponding
structure and “equivalents thereof” must include what is shown in
instant Figures 4-3, 5-1 and 5-2, including the four landing pads
Appeal No. 2001-1268
Application No. 09/100,698
2The examiner indicates (Answer-page 7) that these recesses
are taught by Best in Figures 8A-9F and, by Okada, in Figures 1
and 4. Appellants do not dispute this teaching of “recesses” by
the applied references.
-8–
attached to the surfaces depicted, with two near the leading edge
of the head/slider and two near the trailing edge of the
head/slider, and the recesses 72 and 74, allowing for the first
and second heights described by appellants, wherein the ratio of
the difference between the first and second heights to the first
height is approximately 1:10.
While both Best and Okada disclose “stiction reduction means
for reducing stiction between the slider and the rotatable disc,”
with both references even showing four landing pads and
recesses2, neither of these references discloses the exact
structure of instant Figures 4-3, 5-1 and 5-2, having the landing
pads positioned exactly as shown, two at the leading edge and two
at the trailing edge of the head/slider, and having recesses, as
shown in the instant figures, such that the landing pads have
contact surfaces which extend to a first height below the air
bearing surface toward the disc surface, the landing pads extend
to a second height greater than the first height from the
recessed surface farther from the disc surface than the air
bearing surface and the ratio of the difference between the first
Appeal No. 2001-1268
Application No. 09/100,698
-9–
and second heights to the first height is approximately 1:10.
In order to make it clear to readers of any patent which
should issue from this application what the corresponding and
equivalent structure for the claimed “...means for reducing
stiction...,” comprises, we recommend to appellants and the
examiner that appellants amend the specification, consistent with
this decision and MPEP 2181, to make clear the structure that
corresponds to the stiction reducing means. This would provide
notice to the public as to the scope of instant claim 3.
Since we agree with appellants anent the corresponding
structure identified as the structure shown in Figures 4-3, 5-1
and 5-2, and the attendant descriptions thereof, e.g., the 1:10
ratio described at page 10, lines 16-20, the claimed element
“stiction reduction means for reducing stiction between the
slider and the rotatable disc” shall be construed to cover this
corresponding structure and equivalents thereof.
Since neither Best nor Okada discloses what we have held to
be structure corresponding to the claimed “stiction reduction
means for reducing stiction between the slider and the rotatable
disc,” we will not sustain the rejection of claim 3 under
35 U.S.C. 102(b).
Appeal No. 2001-1268
Application No. 09/100,698
-10–
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EK/RWK
Appeal No. 2001-1268
Application No. 09/100,698
-11–
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC C/O WESTMAN
CHAMPLIN & KELLY, P.A.
SUITE 1600 - INTERNATIONAL CENTRE
900 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-3319