11347489 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2014)

Ex Parte Saliba

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 2014

11347489 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/347,489 02/03/2006 George A. Saliba 11198.112 / Q06-1009-US1 4086 66943 7590 03/26/2014 James P. Broder Roeder & Broder LLP 9915 Mira Mesa Blvd. Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92131 EXAMINER DRAVININKAS, ADAM B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2688 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/26/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GEORGE A. SALIBA ____________ Appeal 2011-009261 Application 11/347,489 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009261 Application 11/347,489 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 28-36. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to magnetic read/write heads (Spec. ¶ 1). Claim 30, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 30. A magnetic head structure for use with magnetic storage media, the structure comprising: a support surface that supports the media as the media moves along a longitudinal direction; and at least one data transducer disposed with the support surface, wherein the support surface has a longitudinal width associated with the at least one data transducer and a reduced longitudinal width region offset along a lateral direction from the at least one data transducer, the lateral direction being orthogonal to the longitudinal direction, the reduced longitudinal width region including at least one cavity that is fully offset in the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction from the at least one data transducer. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Murray Saliba US 3,665,436 US 5,055,959 May 23, 1972 Oct. 8, 1991 Appeal 2011-009261 Application 11/347,489 3 REJECTIONS Claims 2-6, 8, 9, 12-14, and 28-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Saliba. Claims 10 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Saliba and Murray. ANALYSIS The Anticipation Rejection We first note that Appellant presents “General Comments Regarding Saliba” that are not directed to any particular claims (App. Br. 12-18), followed by headings with ostensibly separate arguments for different groups of claims (App. Br. 18-23). However, the separate arguments for each group of claims merely refer back to the same general arguments regarding Saliba. Thus, absent arguments specifically directed to a particular claim, we address Appellant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 30, which we select as representative. Appellant contends Saliba does not disclose a magnetic head structure including a support surface that supports the media as the media moves along a longitudinal direction and at least one data transducer disposed with the support surface, the support surface having a longitudinal width associated with the at least one data transducer and a reduced longitudinal width region including at least one cavity that is fully offset in the longitudinal direction and the lateral direction from the at least one data transducer. (App. Br. 13). Specifically, Appellant argues The Examiner contends that the “cavity” in Saliba that meets these limitations of the present claims is the “cavity in the center between all four transducers.” The Appellant Appeal 2011-009261 Application 11/347,489 4 respectfully submits that it is unreasonable to define what encompasses a single cavity of a single consistent depth as being made up of multiple cavities that are not only adjacent to, but are also co-extensive with one another. (App. Br. 13-14). We disagree with Appellant. Neither Appellant’s Specification nor claim 30 defines the term “cavity.” Absent any specific definition, we agree with the Examiner’s broad but reasonable interpretation of “cavity” as encompassing the central area between Saliba’s islands 14 of the support structure 12 on the tape head assembly 10 (Ans. 4; Saliba, col. 3, ll. 3-28; Figs. 1 and 2). In other words, Saliba describes a “cavity” in the central area between the two islands 14 that is fully enclosed on two sides by the islands, but only partially enclosed on two other sides by the islands (See Ans. 10; Saliba, Fig. 1). Appellant’s argument that the cavity identified by the Examiner is merely a portion of a larger cavity that extends from one lateral edge of the support structure to the other (App. Br. 14) is not persuasive. That is, we disagree with Appellant’s argument that because there is a “consistent depth and continuous nature” of the area between Saliba’s islands, this area defines a single cavity (App. Br. 14-15). Importantly, claim 30 does not preclude the “cavity” from having the same depth as, or being partially connected to, other cavities. As shown by the “Examiner’s Figure” on page 10 of the Answer, Saliba’s islands define subparts to the areas between them and outside of them, which we find reasonably describes several “cavities.” Moreover, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4) that the central cavity between Saliba’s islands is fully offset in both the lateral and longitudinal directions from at least one transducer as recited by claim 30. Appeal 2011-009261 Application 11/347,489 5 We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 30, and claims 2-4, 6, 9, 12-14, 28, 29, and 31-35 not specifically argued separately. Although Appellant relies on the same general arguments for all claims rejected as anticipated, as discussed above, we nevertheless address dependent claims 5 and 8 separately, given Appellant’s arguments which are commensurate with the limitations of these claims (see App. Br. 17-18). Regarding claim 5, Appellant argues “Saliba does not disclose a magnetic head structure . . . wherein a plurality of localized reduced longitudinal width regions are disposed between adjacent data transducers” (App. Br. 17). We disagree. Saliba’s Figure 1 shows multiple areas of differing longitudinal widths between the islands 14, as demonstrated by the “Examiner’s Figure” (see Saliba, Fig. 1; Ans. 10). These areas are “between adjacent data transducers” as recited in claim 5 because they extend in a lateral direction between the adjacent transducers on the top of each island 14 and between the adjacent transducers on the bottom of each island 14 (see Saliba, Fig. 1). Regarding claim 8, Appellant argues “Saliba does not disclose a magnetic head structure . . . and a cavity having a substantially uniform width which is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction” (App. Br. 18). We disagree. As discussed above with respect to claim 30, Saliba describes a central cavity between the islands 14 of the support structure 12. As shown in the “Examiner’s Figure” (Ans. 10), this cavity is rectangular, and thus has a “substantially uniform width which is perpendicular to the longitudinal direction,” as recited in claim 8. Appeal 2011-009261 Application 11/347,489 6 We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 5 and 8. The Obviousness Rejection Appellant presents no new arguments regarding dependent claims 10 and 36 except that Murray fails to teach the limitations of the independent claims (see App. Br. 24-25). However, as discussed above, we find that Saliba discloses the argued independent claim limitations. We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10 and 36. CONCLUSIONS Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2-6, 8, 9, 12-14, and 28-35. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 10 and 36. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-14, and 28-36 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED msc