Ex Parte OHWE et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 20, 2004

08901940 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 20, 2004)

1 Application for patent filed July 29, 1997, which is a continuation
of the Application No. 08/352,926, filed December 9, 1994, now abandoned,
which claims the foreign filing priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of
Japanese Application No. 5-310629, filed December 10, 1993.
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for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 39
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte TAKESHI OHWE, TORU WATANABE,
RYOSUKE KOISHI and SEIZI YONEOKA
____________
Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,9401
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRY and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 58-64, which are all of the claims pending in
this application. Claims 1-57 have been cancelled.
We affirm-in-part.
BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates to a magnetic head assembly
used in a magnetic disk drive which includes a magnetic head
Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
2
positioned on a slider which is mounted on a gimbal spring with
an adhesive agent. According to Appellants, at least a slit
formed in a slider-mounting portion of the gimbal spring prevents
the adhesive agent from spreading beyond the slit and limits the
area on which the adhesive agent is applied (specification,
page 4). A small contact area limits the warping of the slider
which is caused by different coefficients of linear expansion
between the slider and the gimbal spring (id.).
Representative independent claims 58 and 59 and dependent
claim 60 are reproduced below:
58. A magnetic head assembly comprising a slider having a
magnetic head for reading data from and writing data onto a
magnetic recording medium, and a gimbal spring having a slider-
mounting portion on which said slider is mounted with an adhesive
agent, wherein said adhesive agent is located on a part of said
slider-mounting portion which opposes an adhesion surface of said
slider, wherein at least two slits are formed in said slider-
mounting portion of said gimbal spring and said gimbal spring is
formed integrally with a load beam, and is constituted by said
slider-mounting portion being partitioned from said load beam by
two opposing U-shaped holes that are formed in a tip portion of
said load beam, two opposing V-shaped holes that are formed on
the outsides of the two opposing U-shaped holes, and a pair of
beam portions via which said slider-mounting portion is supported
by said load beam, wherein said part of said slider-mounting
portion onto which said adhesive agent is located is limited by
said at least two slits.
59. A magnetic head assembly comprising:
a slider having a magnetic head for reading data from,
and writing data onto, a magnetic recording medium, and
Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
3
a gimbal spring, formed integrally with a load beam and
having a slider-mounting portion on which said slider is mounted
with an adhesive agent,
wherein said slider-mounting portion is supported by
said load beam via a beam portion and said slider-mounting
portion is partitioned by a C-shaped hole which is formed in said
gimbal spring in a direction facing said beam portion,
wherein at least one slit is formed in said slider-
mounting portion so that a portion where said slider is adhered
to said gimbal spring is limited by said at least one slit.
60. The magnetic head assembly of claim 59, wherein a dummy
thin-film pattern is also formed in said slider-mounting portion
so that a portion where said slider is adhered to said gimbal
spring is limited by said at least one slit and said dummy thin-
film pattern.
The references relied on by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims are:
Ainslie et al.(Ainslie) 4,761,699 Aug. 2, 1988
Konishi et al. (Konishi) 5,027,238 Jun. 25, 1991
Yaginuma et al. (Yaginuma) 5,377,064 Dec. 27, 1994
(filed Sep. 7, 1993)
Hyde 5,550,694 Aug. 27, 1996
(filed Jul. 12, 1993)
Claim 59 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Konishi.
Claim 60 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Konishi in view of Ainslie.
Claims 58 and 61-64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Hyde in view of Yaginuma.
Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
4
Rather than reiterate the viewpoints of the Examiner and
Appellants, we refer to the answer (Paper No. 36, mailed
September 25, 2000) for the Examiner’s complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the brief (Paper No. 35, filed
June 16, 2000) for Appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
At the outset, we note that Appellants indicate their
intention that all of the claims being rejected stand together
(brief, page 5) and merely present arguments for each ground of
rejection. Therefore, we address each ground of rejection
separately and limit our review to claims 59, 60 and claim 58,
which is the representative claim of its corresponding group.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 58
and 61-64 over Hyde and Yaginuma, Appellants argue that Hyde
discloses only four slits whereas the claimed configuration, as
depicted in Appellants’ Figure 7, has six slits (brief, page 6).
Appellants further point out that the claimed U-shaped holes may
be equivalent to the two slits formed immediately above and below
the gimbal spring 49 of Hyde (Figure 4) whereas the U-shaped
slits of Hyde can be considered equivalent to the claimed pair of
slits (id.). Appellants assert that Hyde does not show any V-
shaped holes formed outside of the two U-shaped holes and the two
Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
5
slits of Hyde do not limit the adhesive agent (brief, page 7).
With respect to Yaginuma, Appellants argue that the disclosed
slits 71 may not be substituted for the claimed U-shaped holes
(id.).
However, we note that the Examiner characterizes the
elements disclosed by Hyde and Yaginuma differently from what
Appellants argue above. The examiner, in fact, relying on Figure
4, indicates that Hyde provides for two opposing U-shaped holes
(immediately left and right of slider-mounting portion 49) and
two opposing V-shaped holes (above and below gimbal spring 49)
formed outside of the U-shaped holes (answer, pages 6 & 8).
Recognizing that the gimbal portion of Hyde lacks the two slits
that limit the portion onto which the adhesive agent is located,
the Examiner further relies on Figures 8 & 9 of Yaginuma. The
Examiner points to Yaginuma’s gimbal spring which includes
slider-mounting portion 84 wherein at least two slits 71 limit
the area of the slider-mounting portion that is attached to
slider 2 by adhesive agent 90 (answer, page 6). The Examiner
further argues that the rejection is not based on substituting
the slits of Yaginuma for the U-shaped holes of Hyde, instead,
Yaginuma provides for additional “at least two slits” (answer,
page 9).
Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
6
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of obviousness
is established by presenting evidence that the reference
teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill
in the relevant art having the references before him to make the
proposed combination or other modification. See In re Lintner,
458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore,
the conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie
obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective
teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that
individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references to
arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Our review of Hyde confirms that the reference relates to a
head assembly wherein a slider for mounting a read/write head is
mounted on a load beam (col. 2, lines 50-62). Hyde discloses
that (col. 5, lines 15-26):
Near the outboard end of the load beam, generally arcuate
holes are etched through the load beam to leave roughly
circular gimbal pad 49 in the center. A slider 31 (hidden
Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
7
by the load beam in FIG. 4) is mounted on the gimbal pad 49.
Narrow webs of metal between the gimbal pad and the balance
of the load beam can bend to provide gimbal pivots for the
pad. One pair of webs is parallel to the axis of the load
beam, and the other pair is transverse to the axis. Thus
the pad can roll or tilt in any direction so that the slider
mounted on the pad can tilt or roll to fly at the
appropriate attitude relative to the surface of the disk.
Such gimbal assembly is conventional.
[Emphasis added.]

Hyde, therefore, teaches that the gimbal pad is defined by
generally arcuate holes which leave metal web or bridges both
parallel to the axis of the load beam and transverse to the axis.
As depicted in Figure 4, one opposing pair of U-shaped holes (to
left and right of gimbal pad 49) define the metal web or bridges
above and below the gimbal pad whereas one opposing pair of
generally V-shaped holes (above and below gimbal pad 49) are
formed outside the U-shaped holes and define the metal web or
bridges to left and right of the gimbal pad.
Yaginuma, on the other hand discloses a structure for
supporting a slider with a magnetic head, which is bonded to a
joining portion of a gimbal portion (col. 1, lines 59-66). As
depicted in Figure 8, slider mounting portion 84 of gimbal 8
includes opening portions 51 and 71 which shorten the bonding
length of the adhesive between the magnetic head and the slider
mounting portion (col. 5, lines 37-50). Therefore, we find that,
Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
8
as set forth by the Examiner (answer, pages 5 & 8), one of
ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to include
the at least two slits of Yaginuma in the gimbal pad of Hyde to
reduce or limit the “part of said slider-mounting portion onto
which said adhesive agent is located.”
Additionally, the Examiner bases the combination of the
reference teachings to include the at least two slits in the
gimbal pad of Hyde on the suggestion of Yaginuma to minimize
slider camber by dividing the adhering portion in several parts
(col. 5, lines 12-22). Although, the motivation to modify a
prior art reference to arrive at the claimed subject matter does
not have to be identical to that of applicants to establish
obviousness (see In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40 USPQ2d 1309,
1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996), Yaginuma’s slits for dividing the adhering
portion also limits the area onto which the adhesive agent is
located between the magnetic head and the gimbal. Therefore, we
find the Examiner’s position to be reasonable and sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 58 and 61-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Hyde and Yaginuma is sustained.
Turning to the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claim 59 over
Konishi, we note that Appellants only argue that slit 15a of
Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
9
Konishi prevents the adhesive E from invading between the
magnetic core 4 and the flexure portion 14 (brief, page 8).
Appellants assert that Konishi does not provide the slit for
limiting the portion where the slider is adhered on the gimbal
spring, but rather, it is aimed “to prevent the adhesive E from
flowing toward the magnetic core and escaping from the end
portion of the magnetic core 4 when the flexure portion is bent”
(brief, page 9).
In response, the Examiner points out that the magnetic core
of Konishi is a part of the magnetic head and the slider where
the slider is attached to the gimbal spring (answer, page 10).
The Examiner further asserts that preventing the adhesive E from
invading between the magnetic core and the flexure portion would
also limit the portion where the slider (including the magnetic
core) is adhered onto the gimbal spring (id.).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires a
finding that the claim at issue “reads on” a prior art reference.
Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346, 51 USPQ2d
1943, 1945 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting Titanium Metals Corp. v.
Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 781, 227 USPQ 773, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
See also In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Further, establishing anticipation of a claim
Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
10
requires that a single prior art reference discloses, expressly
or under the principles of inherency, each and every element of a
claimed invention as well as disclosing structure which is
capable of performing the recited functional limitations. RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys. Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984); W. L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v.
Garlock Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Similar to Hyde and Yaginuma, Konishi relates to a magnetic
head equipped with a slider that includes a magnetic core.
Konishi, as depicted in Figure 4, provides through hole 15 formed
of slit 15a and an expanded hole 15b in flexure portion 14 in the
area immediately above magnetic core 4 (col. 2, lines 51-59).
Konishi further teaches that the formation of hole 15 prevents
the adhesive E from invading between the magnetic core (a part of
the slider) and the flexure portion (the gimbal spring) (col. 3,
lines 12-16). Therefore, Konishi provides for a slit that
prevents the adhesive E from covering the entire area between the
slider and the gimbal spring.
In view of our findings above, we agree with the Examiner
and find that although slit 15a prevents the adhesive material
from entering between the magnetic core and the gimbal, since the
Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
11
magnetic core is a part of the slider, slit 15a also limits the
area on the slider onto which the adhesive agent is located. We
also disagree with Appellants’ arguments (brief, pages 8 & 9)
that because the placement of through hole 15 prevents the
magnetic core from running into the gimbal spring, it does not
limit the adhesive area between slider 1 and flexure portion 14.
As pointed out by the Examiner, with placing hole 15 over the
magnetic core, the adhesive E, used to attach the slider to the
gimbal spring in the portion confined between C-shaped hole 12a,
is prevented from entering between the slider and the gimbal
spring in the area of the slider under hole 15. In fact, absent
slit 15a, the adhesive would have covered the entire surface
between slider 1 and gimbal spring 14 which is confined between
C-shaped hole 12a. Thus, we find that the Examiner has met the
burden of providing a prima facie case of anticipation.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 59 over
Konishi is sustained.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 60
over Konishi and Ainslie, Appellants argue that Ainslie does not
disclose the dummy thin-film pattern recited in the claim (brief,
page 9). Appellants further point out that Ainslie merely
adheres slider 16 on conductive layer 44 of suspension 40 by
Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
12
using solder balls 80 (brief, pages 9 & 10). However, the focus
of the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments is that
Ainslie discloses a dummy thin-film pattern, such as extension
pattern 49, in a slider-mounting portion (answer, page 11).
Ainslie relates to a method for attaching a slider to a
suspension, which is attached to a support arm of the head
positioning actuator (col. 1, lines 15-28). Ainslie provides for
a pattern of solder contact pads on the back side of the slider
and a similar pattern on the planar portion of the suspension to
which the slider is to be attached (col. 2, lines 46-50. Ainslie
further teaches that because the orientation of the slider with
respect to the suspension is determined by the pattern of the
solder contact pads, the slider can be reliably positioned on the
suspension by merely orienting the solder contact pads (col. 3,
lines 51-55). As depicted in Figures 2 and 3, Ainslie
mechanically bonds slider 16 to the large area portions 52 and 54
of conductive pattern 44 by reflowed solder balls 60 between the
slider back 24 and the conductive layer 44 (col. 5, lines 50-53).
We further note that the portion of the reference relied on
by the Examiner (col. 5, lines 57-59) merely refers to extensions
49 of portion 52 as the areas onto which the inactive transducer
13 are connected and has nothing to do with the claimed dummy
Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
13
thin-film pattern that, with a slit, may limit the adhesive
between the slider and the gimbal spring. This limitation
requires that a dummy pattern and a slit on the gimbal spring
limit the portion where the slider is attached to the gimbal
spring. Therefore, based on our review of Ainslie, we agree with
Appellants that conductive layer 44 and its extensions 49 are not
the same as the claimed dummy thin-film pattern formed in a
slider-mounting portion of a gimbal spring that would limit the
adhesive material between the pattern and a slit. The Examiner
has failed to identify any teachings in the prior art that would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the claimed
dummy thin-film pattern and to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 60 over Konishi and Ainslie.
Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
14
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claim 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and rejecting claims 58
and 61-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. The decision of the
Examiner rejecting claim 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LANCE LEONARD BARRY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MDS/ki
Appeal No. 2002-1157
Application No. 08/901,940
15
Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036-5339