Ex Parte Contreras et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

12832531 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/832,531 07/08/2010
85420 7590
Brokaw Patent Law, PC
101 Church St, Suite 50
Los Gatos, CA 95030
06/29/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Thomas Contreras
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
HGST.P013 4614
EXAMINER
DAVIS, DAVID DONALD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
chris@brokawpatentlaw.com
amaloney@brokawpatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN THOMAS CONTRERAS, BRUCE AL VIN GURNEY,
and NOBUMASA NISHIYAMA
Appeal2014-008476
Application 12/832,531
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-11.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is HGST, a Western
Digital Corporation (App. Br. 3).
2 Claims 12-20 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Appeal2014-008476
Application 12/832,531
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to a suspension interconnect structure of
a read/write head in a hard-disk drive (see Spec. i-fi-f l-3).
Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A suspension interconnect for use in a hard-disk
drive, comprising:
a substrate layer;
a dielectric layer disposed on the substrate layer, wherein
the dielectric layer comprises a dielectric material; and
a plurality of transmission-line (TL) conductors disposed
within the dielectric layer,
wherein an air gap exists in the dielectric layer between
adjacent transmission-line (TL) conductors in the plurality of
transmission-line (TL) conductors,
wherein the area adjacent to the plurality of transmission-
line (TL) conductors, along the direction of travel of signals
carried by the plurality of transmission-line (TL) conductors,
alternates between the dielectric material and a sequence of air
gaps,
wherein the air gap existing in the dielectric layer
between adjacent transmission-line (TL) conductors
continuously extends through the alternating sequence of
dielectric material and the sequence of air gaps, and
wherein the substrate layer comprises one or more air
gaps underneath a portion of the plurality of transmission-line
(TL) conductors.
The Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Girard (US 6,146,813; Nov. 14, 2000) and Sone (US
5,694,270; Dec. 2, 1997) (see Ans. 3-5).
2
Appeal2014-008476
Application 12/832,531
ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner finds Girard discloses all the
recited elements of claim 1 except for "wherein the air gap ... between
adjacent transmission-line (TL) conductors continuously extends through the
alternating sequence of dielectric material and the sequence of air gaps," for
which the Examiner relied on the disclosure of Sone (Ans. 3--4). The
Examiner cites elements 61, 63, and 65 in Figure 3A of Sone as disclosing
"the air gap continuously extending through alternating sequence of
dielectric material" (Ans. 4). The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have found it obvious to:
(Tri I
\~""·}·
[P]rovide an air gap existing continuously as taught by Sone et
al. The rationale is as follows: one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made would have been motivated to
provide an air gap existing continuously so as to provide effect
separation between adjacent transmission line conductors so as
to reduce possible crosstalk or signal noise.
Appellants contend Figure 1 OB of Girard shows an area where
dielectric material completely covers the transmission lines and an area
where the transmission lines are completely uncovered by dielectric material
(App. Br. 12). Appellants contrast the claim 1 requirement of "the air gap
existing in the dielectric layer between adjacent transmission-line (TL)
conductors continuously extends through the alternating sequence of
dielectric material and the sequence of air gaps" to the disclosure of Girard
and state:
While Girard does show a feature analogous to an air spine
(i.e., an air gap existing in the dielectric layer between adjacent
transmission-line (TL) conductors), nowhere in Girard is the air
spine "continuously extend[ing] through the alternating
3
Appeal2014-008476
Application 12/832,531
sequence of cross ties 550 (i.e., dielectric material) and
substrate windows 560 (the sequence of air gaps)."
(App. Br. 13). With respect to Sone, Appellants contend no airgap is shown
that "continuously extends through an alternating sequence of dielectric
material and a sequence of air gaps as claimed" (App. Br. 15).
We agree with Appellants' assertion that Girard covers the
transmission lines by a dielectric material in parts of the transmission-line
conductors and interrupts the air gaps in the dielectric layer between
adjacent conductors (Reply Br. 5). As further explained by Appellants (id.),
the areas where an air gap exists between adjacent transmission-line
conductors, the air gap does not continuously extend through an alternating
sequence of dielectric material and a sequence of air gaps.
Appellants' contention also persuades us that Sone lacks any air gap
existing in the dielectric layer between adjacent transmission-line conductors
(see Reply Br. 7-10) and, in fact, relates to a cross section of the two
conductor patterns 62(64) and 66(68) through the head slider mounting
portion 36 in Figure 2 (see also Ans. 6; Sone col. 4, 11. 9-17 and 43--49). As
argued by Appellants (Reply Br. 10), the disclosure of Sone is not relevant
to the structure disclosed in Figure 1 OA of Girard.
Therefore, Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's position with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1 and
claims 2-11, which depend therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-11.
REVERSED
4