Ex parte Kadowaki

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 14, 2000

08389069 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 14, 2000)

Application for patent filed February 14, 1995. According to1
appellant, this application is a continuation of Application No. 08/064,958,
filed May 20, 1993, now abandoned.
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not
written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 38
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte YOSHINORI KADOWAKI
____________
Appeal No. 1997-3965
Application No. 08/389,0691
____________
HEARD: January 24, 2000
____________
Before BARRETT, HECKER, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 5, 7, 8, and 10, which are all
of the claims pending in this application. Claims 6, 9, and
11 through 13 have been canceled.
Appeal No. 1997-3965
Application No. 08/389,069
2
The appellant's invention relates to a magnetic disk
apparatus having a floating slider. The longitudinal axis of
the slider body coincides with a tangent line of an
intermediate track when the slider is positioned over that
track. In addition, two parallel rails on the slider extend
obliquely to the longitudinal axis of the slider body. The
rails form an angle with the tangent line of the track over
which the slider is positioned, the angle being substantially
zero for the innermost track and increasing as the slider
moves radially away from the innermost track. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as
follows:
1. A magnetic disk apparatus comprising:
a plurality of coaxially arranged magnetic disks having
respective opposite surfaces and tracks arranged on said
surfaces;
a magnetic head assembly including a rotatable head
carriage with a hub and a plurality of head arms extending
from the hub in a line, each of the head arms having a
longitudinal central axis;
at least one floating slider having a body configured in
a generally rectangular parallelepiped shape carried by each
of the head arms and having at least one magnetic head for
access of one of the surfaces of the magnetic disks;
Appeal No. 1997-3965
Application No. 08/389,069
The examiner refers to this reference as Nippon Denki K.K. Further,2
our understanding of this reference is based upon a translation provided by
the Translations Branch of the Patent and Trademark Office.
The examiner refers to this reference as Ricoh Co Ltd. Further, our3
understanding of this reference is based upon a translation provided by the
Translations Branch of the Patent and Trademark Office.
3
said body having a longitudinal central axis extending
generally parallel to the longitudinal central axis of the
associated head arm and a first surface adapted to face the
surface of the magnetic disk, and at least two parallel rails
arranged on the first surface of the floating slider,
extending obliquely to the longitudinal central axis of the
body and defining a rail angle between said rails and a
tangent line of a corresponding one of said tracks over which
said body is positioned, wherein said rail angle is
substantially zero when said body is positioned over an
innermost track and said rail angle increases as said body
moves radially away from said innermost track; and
wherein said longitudinal central axis of said body
coincides with a tangent line of an intermediate track when
said body is positioned over said intermediate track.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Toensing 5,012,367 Apr. 30,
1991
Kuroda 5,299,079 Mar. 29,
1994
(filed April 29, 1992)
Yamada et al. (Yamada) JP 60-047278 Mar. 14,2
1985
(Japanese Patent specification)
Ono et al. (Ono) JP 2-161667 Jun. 21,3
1990
Appeal No. 1997-3965
Application No. 08/389,069
The examiner refers to this reference as NEC Corp. Further, our4
understanding of this reference is based upon a translation provided by the
Translations Branch of the Patent and Trademark Office.
4
(Japanese Patent Publication)
Hanagata JP 2-281486 Nov. 19,4
1990
(Japanese Kokai Patent Publication)
Claims 1 through 5, 7, 8, and 10 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Toensing in view of
Yamada and either Kuroda or Ono, and for claim 8, further in
view of Hanagata.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 30,
mailed November 22, 1996) and the Supplemental Examiner's
Answer (Paper No. 33, mailed April 11, 1997) for the
examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to appellant's Brief (Paper No. 29, filed October 1, 1996)
and Reply Brief (Paper No. 32, filed January 24, 1997) for
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
As a preliminary matter we note that appellant indicates
on page 7 of the Brief that all of the claims are to stand or
fall together. Accordingly, we will treat all of the claims
Appeal No. 1997-3965
Application No. 08/389,069
Since the examiner only applied Hanagata against claim 8, which is to5
stand or fall with claim 1, we will not discuss Hanagata in this decision.
5
as a single group with claim 1, the only independent claim, as
representative.5
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 5, 7, 8, and 10.
Claim 1 requires that (1) the longitudinal axis of the
slider body extends parallel to both the longitudinal axis of
the associated head arm and also the tangent line of an
intermediate track when the body is positioned thereover, (2)
two rails extend obliquely to the longitudinal axis of the
slider body, and (3) the angle between the rails and a tangent
line of a track over which the slider is positioned is zero
for the innermost track and increases as the slider moves
radially away from the innermost track. The examiner asserts
that Toensing shows (1) (Answer, page 4), Yamada teaches (2)
(Answer, pages 5-7), and Kuroda and Ono teach (3) (Answer,
pages 4-5).
Appeal No. 1997-3965
Application No. 08/389,069
6
Appellant argues (Brief, pages 8-14) that Toensing does
not disclose the angular relationship between the longitudinal
axis of the slider body and the tangent of an intermediate
track. Appellant contends (Brief, pages 9-11, and Reply
Brief, pages
4-5) that without a discussion in Toensing as to the angular
relationship, the other references applied by the examiner
evidence that Toensing cannot be interpreted to include the
claimed relationship. However, the additional references
disclose structures that differ significantly from Toensing's.
On the other hand, appellant discloses (Specification, page 2,
lines 22-28) a prior art structure similar to that shown by
Toensing's figure 3 and admits that "[c]onventionally, . . .
when the floating slider is positioned on an intermediate
track the angle the rails on the floating slider form with the
tangent to the radially intermediate track is zero." Thus,
appellant's admissions appear to be more relevant extrinsic
evidence as to what Toensing inherently discloses.
Further, appellant asserts (Brief, pages 11-14) that one
cannot infer any relationship from the drawings of Toensing
unless "one of ordinary skill in the art would have known the
Appeal No. 1997-3965
Application No. 08/389,069
7
values for such measurements." Toensing's figures 2 and 3
show two rails aligned with the longitudinal axis of both the
slider and the head arm and both the direction of rotation and
position of the arm relative to the disk. The drawings appear
to have the longitudinal axis of the slider parallel to a
track tangent somewhere in the middle of the disk. Given
appellant's admissions discussed above as to what is
conventional, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
known that the floating slider is parallel to the tangent of
an intermediate track. Accordingly, the skilled artisan would
properly interpret the drawings as having the slider body and
corresponding rails aligned with the tangent of an
intermediate track.
Appellant states (Brief, page 15) that even if Toensing
does align the longitudinal axis of the slider with the
tangent of an intermediate track, "there is no motivation to
maintain the angular relationship found in Toensing (as
asserted by the Examiner)" when modifying Toensing with the
teachings of Kuroda and Ono. More specifically, appellant
explains (Brief, pages 15-17) that Kuroda and Ono both teach
aligning the slider body with the tangent of the innermost
Appeal No. 1997-3965
Application No. 08/389,069
8
track and increasing the angle between the slider and the
tangent of the track over which the slider is positioned as
the slider moves radially outward from the innermost track.
Further, Kuroda and Ono, as well as Toensing, orient the rails
parallel to the longitudinal axis of the slider body.
Therefore, both the longitudinal axis of the slider and the
rails of the slider will be at an angle of zero degrees to the
tangent of the innermost track, not an intermediate track.
We agree that the application of the teachings of Kuroda
and Ono to Toensing eliminates the angular relationship
between the slider body and the tangent to the intermediate
track. The issue therefore is whether Yamada provides
motivation for reestablishing the relationship between the
slider body and the tangent to an intermediate track.
Yamada teaches forming the rails at an angle to the
longitudinal axis of the slider body and aligning the slider
body and arm parallel to the tangent of a track instead of
aligning the slider body at a skew angle to the track tangent.
Then, the apparatus can be formed more easily as the slider
axis can be simply matched with the tangent of the track,
thereby avoiding the difficulty of precisely providing the
Appeal No. 1997-3965
Application No. 08/389,069
9
skew angle. Since Yamada has a constant skew angle, no
selection of an appropriate track is required. Applying the
teachings of Yamada to the combination discussed above, there
is no motivation in any of the references to select a track
where the skew angle is non-zero, so that the rails can be
aligned at that skew angle and the slider body can be aligned
parallel to the tangent to the track.
The examiner relies on Toensing's slider body being parallel
to an intermediate track, but the application of Kuroda and
Ono eliminates Toensing's angular relationship, and no
reference teaches a reason to reestablish a zero degree angle
between the slider body and the intermediate track.
Accordingly, we agree with appellant that the examiner lacks
the motivation to maintain the angular relationship between
the slider body and the tangent to an intermediate track.
We note that were we to apply the teachings of Yamada to
Toensing first, before applying Kuroda and Ono, we would reach
the same conclusion. Toensing has the rails and slider body
at a zero degree angle to the tangent to an intermediate
track. Yamada teaches obliquely aligning the rails on the
slider body at the skew angle so as to orient the slider
Appeal No. 1997-3965
Application No. 08/389,069
10
parallel to the tangent, which is easier than orienting the
slider at the skew angle. However, as the slider is already
aligned with the tangent of the intermediate track, there is
no motivation to make the modification. Even if we could
merely substitute Yamada's slider for Toensing's, thereby
maintaining the angular relationship between the slider body
and the tangent to the intermediate track, there is no
motivation to maintain that angular relationship after
applying the teachings of Kuroda and Ono. Consequently, the
angular relationship between the longitudinal axis of the
slider and the rails would not have
been obvious. Therefore, we must reverse the rejection of
claims 1 through 5, 7, 8, and 10.
Appeal No. 1997-3965
Application No. 08/389,069
11
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
5, 7, 8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART N. HECKER ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-3965
Application No. 08/389,069
12
GREER BURNS & CRAIN LTD
SUITE 8660 SEARS TOWER
233 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE
CHICAGO, IL 60606