Ex Parte Kiely et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

14037139 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/037,139
98068 7590
Hollingsworth Davis
8000 West 78th Street
Suite 450
09/25/2013
09/26/2016
Minneapolis, MN 55439
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James Dillon Kiely
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.
STB.113.Al 1079
EXAMINER
SNIEZEK, ANDREW L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
tdotter@hdpatlaw.com
roswood@hdpatlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES DILLON KIELY and JON D. TRANTHAM
Appeal2015-006622
Application 14/037,139
Technology Center 2600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12-20, all pending claims of the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2015-006622
Application 14/037,139
STATEMENT OF THE INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a detection and
remediation of contamination of a magnetic recording head (Abstract; Spec.
1, 11. 5---6). Claims 1 and 8, reproduced below, are exemplary of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
energizing a heat generating component of a slider at a
predetermined frequency to change a spacing between a
medium and the slider;
measuring a temperature response proximate a media-facing
surface of the slider while the heat generating component is
energized via a dedicated dual-ended temperature coefficient
of resistivity sensor separate from a write element and a read
element;
based on the measured temperature response, determining
that the media-facing surface is contaminated; and
taking remedial action in response to determining that the
media-facing surface is contaminated.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the representative temperature
response comprises a plurality of representative examples
measured over an operational period of the slider.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
2
Appeal2015-006622
Application 14/037,139
Anderson
Smith
US 8,593,753 Bl
US 2003/0202273 Al
REJECTION
Nov. 26, 2013
Oct. 30, 2003
Claims 1--4, 6-10, and 12-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a)
as being unpatentable over Smith and Anderson (Final Act. 2--4).
ISSUES
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1--4, 6--10, and 12-20
Appellants contend the claimed invention is not obvious over Smith
and Anderson (App. Br. 6-8). The issues presented by the arguments are:
Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Smith
and Anderson teaches or suggests "based on the measured temperature
response, determining that the media-facing surface is contaminated," as
recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent
claims 9 and 17?
Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Smith
and Anderson teaches or suggests "the heat generating component is
energized via a dedicated dual-ended temperature coefficient of resistivity
sensor," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 9 and 1 7?
Issue 3: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Smith
and Anderson teaches or suggests "the representative temperature response
comprises a plurality of representative examples measured over an
operational period of the slider," as recited in claims 8 and 16?
3
Appeal2015-006622
Application 14/037,139
Issue 4: Has the Examiner improperly combined the teachings and
suggestions of Smith and Anderson?
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17:
Appellants argue Smith is directed to detecting contamination on the
trailing edge of the slider and not the media facing surface as recited in
claim 1 (App. Br. 6). According to Appellants, "[t]he trailing edge of a
slider is not the media-facing surface" but instead, "is perpendicular to the
plane of a recording medium" (id.). Specifically, Appellants argue in Smith,
the trailing edge is the back of the slider and further, contaminants are not
shown to accumulate on a surface facing the recording medium; rather,
contaminants are shown to accumulate on a slider trailing edge (App. Br. 7).
Initially, as a matter of claim construction, Appellants argue the
trailing edge and the media-facing surface "clearly describe different
locations on a slider" and are well-known to those of skill in the art (Reply
Br. 6). According to Appellants, the "media-facing surface" is "the surface
of the magnetic recording head arrangement facing the magnetic medium"
and the "trailing edge" is "the edge of the slider that is last to pass over a
position of the recording medium" (id.).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Appellants have not
defined explicitly the terms "media-facing surface" or "trailing edge" in
their Specification. Appellants point to Figure 1, page 3, lines 24 through 27
and page 4, lines 20 through 28 as providing support that the terms have
specific meaning and, thus, Smith does not teach the "media-facing surface"
(Reply Br. 6). Page 3, lines 24 through 27 describes the magnetic recording
4
Appeal2015-006622
Application 14/037,139
head arrangement (Spec. 3:24--27). Specifically, Appellants' Specification
describes the magnetic recording head arrangement is located on a slider,
and "[t]he surface of the magnetic recording head arrangement facing the
magnetic medium (the media-facing surface) ... may be configured as an air
bearing surface (ABS)" (id.). Page 4, lines 20 through 28 describe:
The edge of the slider that first passes over any position of the
rotating recording medium in the downtrack direction is referred
to as the leading edge, and the edge of the slider that is last to
pass over the position of the recording medium is referred to as
the trailing edge, designated by plane 104.
In light of the description, we are unconvinced by Appellants'
arguments that the terms "media-facing surface" and "trailing edge" cannot
correspond. Indeed, Smith's Figure 3 illustrates "a rear view of a slider
trailing edge showing a thin film coil with a drop of liquid lubricant partially
covering the coil" (Smith i-fl4). Smith :farther teaches "FIG. 3 illustrates the
trailing edge of a slider 35, having an airbearing surface 66" (Smith i128,
Fig. 3). As Appellants' Specification describes the media-facing surface
may be configured as an air bearing surface, and Smith teaches the slider
trailing edge having an air bearing surface, we are not persuaded Smith does
not teach or at least suggest, the slider trailing edge is a media-facing
surface. Additionally, we find Smith teaches contamination detection on the
trailing edge of the slider (Smith i-fi-f l, 5, 10, 26).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Smith and Anderson teaches "based on the measured
temperature response, determining that the media-facing surface is
5
Appeal2015-006622
Application 14/037,139
contaminated," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately
recited in independent claims 9 and 17.
Appellants further argue neither Smith nor Anderson teaches or
suggests a dedicated dual-ended temperature coefficient of resistivity sensor
(App. Br. 7). According to Appellants, although both Smith and Anderson
teach using a resistivity sensor to measure temperature in a slider head,
neither teaches use of the claimed type of sensor (id.).
Initially, as a matter of claim construction, Appellants contend an
ordinarily skilled artisan would understand a dual-ended sensor to mean the
sensor's respective ends have separate bias sources (Reply Br. 7).
According to Appellants, "a sensor merely having two ends fails to
correspond to the claimed dual-ended temperature coefficient of resistivity
sensor" (id.). However, Appellants do not define explicitly the recited
"dual-ended" sensor in their Specification nor have Appellants provided any
evidence or argument that the term would have been interpreted by an
ordinarily skilled artisan, as Appellants contend. We determine the
Examiner's interpretation to be broad, but reasonable, in light of the
Specification. Additionally, Appellants have not identified any evidence or
argument to persuade us the Examiner's interpretation is in error. The
Examiner finds that both Smith and Anderson teach the recited sensor, such
as the disclosed GMR sensor or other resistive types of sensors (Ans. 2;
Final Act. 3).
Appellants additionally argue modifying Smith with the teachings of
Anderson would improperly change the principle of operation of Smith's
6
Appeal2015-006622
Application 14/037,139
temperature detection at the trailing edge (App. Br. 8). According to
Appellants, placing the temperature detection element at the back of the
slider would require Smith's inductive coil, already positioned on the back
of the slider, to be moved and as a result, would prevent detection of
contamination (App. Br. 8-9).
Appellants have not persuaded us an ordinarily skilled artisan would
not have found it obvious, in light of the teachings and suggestions of Smith
and Anderson, to modify Smith's system with the teachings of Anderson.
Appellants argue the modification would change the principle of operation
of Smith (App. Br. 8). However, the Examiner finds Smith teaches use of
"an alternative arrangement of using a GMR element for the same purpose"
- "to detect when the trailing edge is contaminated" (Ans. 3). The
Examiner further finds Anderson teaches "similar GMR sensors and that
these sensors can be used in a head arrangement that includes both a read
and a write element" (id.).
Appellants assert both the thin film coil and the GMR element of
Smith are associated with the thin film write element to detect contamination
at the trailing edge (Reply Br. 9). Appellants further assert "[ m ]oving the
temperature detection element away from the thin film write element would
undermine the temperature detection element's ability to measure heat loss
at the thin film coil associated with the thin film write element and to detect
contamination at the desired location - the trailing edge" (id.). Appellants
however, do not address the Examiner's combination of Smith and Anderson
and specifically, the Examiner's finding that Anderson teaches "similar
7
Appeal2015-006622
Application 14/037,139
GMR sensors and that these sensors can be used in a head arrangement that
includes both a read element and a write element" (id.).
Furthermore, we are not persuaded the combination would fail to
achieve predictable results, i.e., detecting contamination of the media-facing
surface. The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-88 (Fed. Cir. 2006); In re Young, 927 F.2d 588,
591 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper to take into account not
only the specific teachings of the references but also the inferences that one
skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re
Preda, 401F.2d825, 826 (CCPA 1968).
Here, Appellants have not presented sufficient persuasive evidence or
argument that modifying Smith with the teachings of Anderson would have
been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
"represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters.,
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007)).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Smith and Anderson teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent
claims 9 and 17. Nor are we persuaded the Examiner improperly combined
the teachings and suggestions of Smith and Anderson. Appellants did not
separately argue dependent claims 2--4, 6, 7, 10, 12-15, and 18-20; thus,
these claims fall with their respective independent claims. Therefore, we
8
Appeal2015-006622
Application 14/037,139
sustain the rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, 10, 12-15, and 18-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Smith and Anderson.
Claims 8 and 16:
Appellants argue Smith teaches thin film resistance change may be
measured periodically over the lifetime of the drive; however, according to
Appellants, the thin film resistance changes are compared against resistance
values saved at the time of manufacture (App. Br. 8). Appellants, thus,
contend Smith's periodic measurements do not correspond to the recited
representative temperature response because the values saved at the time of
manufacture are not measured over an operational period of the slider (id.;
Reply Br. 8).
We agree with the Examiner that Smith teaches measuring
periodically, over the lifetime of the drive, the thin film resistance change,
and comparing these measurements against resistance values saved at the
time of manufacture (Ans. 2-3; Smith i-fi-1 30-31 ). However, we agree with
Appellants that Smith's teaching of saving the values at the time of
manufacture does not teach "a plurality of representative examples measured
over an operational period of the slider" nor does the Examiner explain
sufficiently why Smith's description would teach or at least suggest the
disputed limitation. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Smith and Anderson teaches or suggests the
limitations as recited in claims 8 and 16.
9
Appeal2015-006622
Application 14/037,139
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12-15, and 17-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith and Anderson is
affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 8 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Smith and Anderson is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10