Ex Parte Yao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 9, 2012

11866334 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MING GAO YAO, MASASHI SHIRAISHI, and YI RU XIE
____________

Appeal 2010-001678
Application 11/866,334
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JEAN R HOMERE, ST JOHN COURTENAY III, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 16, and 17. Claims 8-15 and 26-31 have been
cancelled; claims 18-25, 32, and 35 are allowed; and claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 33,
and 34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-001678
Application 11/866,334
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to an air bearing slider which utilizes
negative pressure grooves. See Spec. 20, Abstract of the Disclosure.

Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A slider comprising:

a slider body;

first and second rails on a first structure at a first depth from
said first and second rails, said first and second rails extending
in a longitudinal direction along the slider body;

a first groove segment in said first structure to a groove depth,
said groove depth being greater than said first depth;

a second and third groove segment in said first structure to said
groove depth, wherein said first groove segment extends from
the leading edge of the body and between said first and second
rails; and

said second and third groove segments extend from said first
groove segment to a trailing edge of the body.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Kohira US 6,628,480 Sep. 30, 2003

Appeal 2010-001678
Application 11/866,334
3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 6, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§102(e) as anticipated by Kohira. Ans. 3-4.1

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issue to
be dispositive of the claims on appeal:
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 6, 16,
and 17 by finding that Kohira anticipates “a first groove segment in said first
structure to a groove depth, said groove depth being greater than said first
depth” and “a second and third groove segment in said first structure to said
groove depth” as set forth in independent claims 1 and 16?

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 2, 2009;
the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 8, 2010; and the Reply Brief filed
August 10, 2009.
Appeal 2010-001678
Application 11/866,334
4
ANALYSIS
The Examiner has relied upon Figure 19 of Kohira, which is depicted
below:

Figure 19 of Kohira is a plan view of a fifth form of the magnetic
head slider of Kohira, annotated by hand with the Examiner’s indication of
the first, second and third grooves, as previously set forth in the Office
Action dated October 1, 2008. The Examiner finds that Figure 19 of Kohira
depicts a first groove which extends from the leading edge of the body and a
second and third groove which extend from the first groove to the trailing
edge of the body. Ans. 3-4.
Appellants argue that “groove” is an easily undertood term by one of
ordinary skill in the art. Indeed, Merriam Webster defines “groove” as “a
long narrow channel or depression” such as “the grooves on a vinyl record.”
(See http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/groove)
Consequently, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s citation of a
singular area (recess 11), which the Examiner arbitrarily divided into three
segments, cannot be said to anticipate the Appellants claimed “grooves.”
App. Br. 5-6.
Appeal 2010-001678
Application 11/866,334
5
We find the Appellants’ argument persuasive. Recess 11, as illustrated
above, appears to be wider than it is long and cannot be reasonably
construed as “narrow.” We therefore find that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1 and 16 and claims 3, 6, and 17, which depend
therefrom.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 6, 16, and 17 under
§ 102.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 6, 16, and 17 is
reversed.

REVERSED

peb