Ex parte IIZUKA et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 21, 2001

08286224 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 21, 2001)

1 According to the examiner (answer, page 3), the
amendment had the effect of overcoming the indefiniteness
rejection of claims 1 and 6.
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was not written for publication and is not binding precedent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. 31
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte TOSHIHIRO IIZUKA,
YUKIHITO ITO and
SHOJI TOYODA
__________
Appeal No. 1997-3157
Application 08/286,224
__________
HEARD: September 11, 2001
__________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH, and GROSS, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 6. In an Amendment After Final1 (paper number 17),
Appeal No. 1997-3157
Application No. 08/286,224
2
claims 1 and 2 were amended.
The disclosed invention relates to a magnetic head device
that maintains a core piece of a head at a constant floating
height over all of the area of a rotating disk when performing
a read/write operation.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
1. A magnetic head device with constant head floating
height including a head arm attached to a drive shaft of a
hard disc drive device, a suspension means extending from said
head arm, and a head slider fixed on the tip end of said
suspension means having an air bearing surface extending along
said head arm in the longitudinal direction thereof, wherein
the distance from the fulcrum for rotating/driving said head
arm to the center of a magnetic disc D (mm), the distance from
the fulcrum of said head arm to the center of said head slider
L (mm), and the radial width of the recording area of said
magnetic disc W (mm), the distance from the rotating/driving
fulcrum of said head arm to the center of the slider is so set
to satisfy the relation:
0 # (D - L) mm # (0.6 W - 4.4) mm
wherein, the radial width W of said magnetic disc is
between 12.5mm and 22.5mm, a core piece is positioned so as to
be maintained at a constant floating height over all area of
the rotating disc when performing a reading/writing operation.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Asano 4,819,100 Apr. 4,
1989
Hatch et al. (Hatch) 5,027,241 June 25,
1991
Appeal No. 1997-3157
Application No. 08/286,224
2 A copy of the translation of this reference is attached.
3
Sugahara et al.(Sugahara)5,285,338 Feb. 8,
1994
(effective filing date Oct. 3, 1990)
Sakai2 4-125871 Apr. 27, 1992
(Japanese Patent Application)
Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Asano.
Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Hatch.
Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Sugahara.
Reference is made to the briefs (paper numbers 22, 25 and
27) and the answers (paper numbers 23 and 26) for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1
through 6.
All of the claims on appeal require that a distance D
from a fulcrum for rotating/driving a head arm to the center
of a magnetic disc, that a distance L from the fulcrum of the
Appeal No. 1997-3157
Application No. 08/286,224
4
head arm to the center of a head slider, and that a radial
width W of the recording area of the magnetic disc must
satisfy a mathematical relationship in a claimed equation in
order to maintain the core piece of the head at a constant
floating height over the rotating disc. With respect to the
teachings of Sakai and Asano, the examiner is of the opinion
(answer, pages 4 and 5) that Sakai discloses the “lower limit”
of the claimed equation, and that Asano discloses the “upper
limit” of the claimed equation. The examiner is of the
opinion (answer, page 5) that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the “upper limit”
teachings of Asano to the teachings of Sakai to “provide a
higher density recording disk drive.” The examiner
acknowledges (answer, pages 7 and 8) that Hatch and Sugahara
do not disclose the claimed equation. According to the
examiner (answer, pages 7 through 10), Hatch and Sugahara
“could” or “would” satisfy the claimed equation “depending on
the values of ‘D’, ‘L’ and ‘W’” in order to “provide a higher
density recording disk drive.”
Appellants argue (brief, paper number 22, pages 11 and
12) that:
Appeal No. 1997-3157
Application No. 08/286,224
5
While the Japanese ‘871 and Asano references
coincidentally individually teach (D-L) values which
may meet one of the upper or lower limits of the
stated parametric range, such teachings are purely
coincidental and there is no pattern of teachings
which in any way results in the derivation of both
the upper and lower limit or the connection between
the subject parameters and the constant floating
height thereby effected. Instead, each of these
references is clearly outside at least one of these
limits. Since there is no suggestion in the
references for the upper and lower limits of the
claimed range in the Asano and Japanese ‘871
references, and since there is no motivation for
combining the Japanese ‘871 and Asano references
found in the teachings of these references
themselves, it is respectfully submitted, that the
outstanding rejection is based purely on hindsight.
Regarding the applied Hatch et al ‘241 and
Sugahara et al ‘338 references, the outstanding
grounds for rejection based on these references
acknowledge that neither of these references teaches
the relationship stated in Appellants’ claim 1. To
remedy these deficiencies in the Hatch et al ‘241
and Sugahara et al ‘338 references, the outstanding
grounds for rejection summarily concludes that it
would [be] obvious to pick values of “D”, “L” and
“W” of the disc drive to satisfy the condition set
forth in claim 1 in order to “provide a higher
density recording disc drive” and in order “to
maintain the constant sensitivity of the magnetic
head in order to provide a higher density recording
disc drive.”[8] Yet, the Official Action fails to
identify a single teaching in the references
suggesting that the parameters “D”, “L” and “W” are
relevant to the provision of “a higher density
recording disc drive” or “to maintain the constant
sensitivity of the magnetic head” and the only
source of such teachings is Appellants’ disclosure.
It is therefore respectfully submitted that clearly
Appeal No. 1997-3157
Application No. 08/286,224
6
the outstanding grounds for rejection are based on
hindsight. . . .
In conclusion, the applied references of record
are not seen as providing teachings which singly or
in combination negate patentability of the claimed
magnetic head device recited in claims 1-6.
We agree with appellants’ arguments. The examiner’s
contentions to the contrary notwithstanding, the applied
references neither teach nor would have suggested the claimed
mathematical relationship. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of claims 1 through 6 are reversed because the
examiner has failed to present a prima facie case of
obviousness.
Appeal No. 1997-3157
Application No. 08/286,224
7
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:svt
Appeal No. 1997-3157
Application No. 08/286,224
8
OBLON SPIVAK McCLELLAND MAIER & NEUSTADT
Fourth Floor
1755 Jefferson Davis Highway
Arlington, VA 22202