Ex Parte Che et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 23, 2012

11542354 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/542,354 10/02/2006 Xiaodong Che HSJ920050306US1 5716
45552 7590 02/23/2012
HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP
123 WESTRIDGE DRIVE
WATSONVILLE, CA 95076
EXAMINER
WONG, KIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte XIAODONG CHE and XIAO Z. WU
__________

Appeal 2010-002245
Application 11/542,354
Technology Center 2100
__________

Before KEVIN F. TURNER, STEPHEN C. SIU, and JOSIAH C. COCKS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
The disclosed invention relates generally to an apparatus and method
for detecting low flying sliders (Spec. 1).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A low flying slider detector comprising:
a surface;
Appeal 2010-002245
Application 11/542,354

2
a suspender for suspending and flying a slider above said
surface;
a detector for detecting a low flying said slider flying above
said surface wherein said detector does not require measuring of said
slider fly height to detect said low flying slider and wherein said
detecting of said low flying slider is performed at least at a slider level
of assembly.
(App. Br. 18, Claims Appendix.)

The Examiner rejects claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Smith (US Patent No. 6,195,219 B1; Feb. 27, 2001).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Smith discloses each limitation
recited in claims 1-30?

FINDING OF FACT
Smith discloses an MR (magnetoresistive) element (see, e.g.,
Abstract) that “causes the head to hover above the disk” (col. 1, l. 35), that is
“spaced apart from a surface of a data storage disk” (col. 3, ll. 21-22), and
that detects “[i]f the head-to-disk spacing is below the minimum flyheight”
(col. 14, ll. 54-55).

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
Appeal 2010-002245
Application 11/542,354

3
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis Pharm.
Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted).

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
We agree with the Examiner that Smith discloses the features recited
in claim 1 for at least the reasons set forth by the Examiner (Ans. 6-7).
Appellants argue that “Smith does not disclose . . . detecting a low
flying slider at least at a slider level of assembly” (App. Br. 12). We note
that the Specification discloses “testing can be performed at many levels of
slider assembly” (Spec. 11 and 28) but does not provide further guidance as
to what the claimed “slider level of assembly” must include. Nor do
Appellants indicate an explicit definition of the term “slider level of
assembly.” We therefore construe the term “slider level of assembly”
broadly but reasonably using the plain and ordinary meaning of the terms to
include at a level in which the “slider” is, to some degree (or “level”), in an
“assembled” or functional state.
As described above, Smith discloses detecting a low flying “slider”
(e.g., MR element) (FF). The process disclosed by Smith is performed by
the MR element, the MR element being, to some degree, in an assembled
and functional state in order to perform the process. Smith does not disclose
that the MR element (i.e., “slider”) is “disassembled,” nor would one of
ordinary skill in the art assume that the MR element of Smith is
Appeal 2010-002245
Application 11/542,354

4
“disassembled” since the MR element would be unable to perform the
process if not functional and in some state of “assembly”.
In other words, Appellants have not provided a sufficient showing that
the operation disclosed in Smith of detecting an MR element as a low flying
slider is somehow not performed “at least at a slider level of assembly.”
Claims 15, 24, and 30 recite similar features as claim 1.

Claim 2
Appellants argue that Smith does not disclose “‘sorting said slider
according to said low flying’ (emphasis added) as claimed in Claim 2 and
similarly in Claims 15, 24, and 30” (App. Br. 14). Appellants do not point
to an explicit definition of the term “sort” or “sorting.” We construe the
term “sorting” broadly but reasonably to include, for example, “to arrange
according to characteristics” or “classify” (Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate
Dictionary, Eleventh Edition, 2005, p. 1191) – in this case, to classify a
“slider” as “low flying.” Such a definition comports with the Specification
that discloses that “[s]liders that provide a recognized interference [i.e., that
are low flying] will be sorted as low flying sliders” (emphasis added) (Spec.
17, 18) (in other words, the Specification discloses “sorting” an interference
as a low flying slider as classifying the interference as such).
Smith discloses that a low flying slider (i.e., “MR element”) is
detected and classified as low flying and is therefore “sorted” as low flying,
as recited in claim 2. For example, Smith discloses that the process of
Appeal 2010-002245
Application 11/542,354

5
controlling the fly height is repeated at various levels of write current until
“the head-to-disk spacing is below the minimum flyheight” (col. 14, ll. 54-
55) at which time the “interference” (i.e., detection of a low flying MR
element) is classified (or “sorted”) as “low flying” and “the process ends”
(col. 14, l. 55). Appellants have not adequately indicated any differences
between the classifying of Smith and the sorting as recited in claim 2.
Claims 15, 24, and 30 recite similar features as claim 2.

Claim 3
Claim 3 recites “a reusable mechanism for temporarily suspending
said slider above said surface.” Appellants argue that Smith fails to disclose
this feature because, according to Appellants, “it is well known in the art that
a suspender . . . is not reusable once it has suspended a slider above a disk
surface” (App. Br. 14). Based on the record, we disagree with Appellants.
As described above, Smith discloses an “MR element” (i.e., “slider”)
that hovers over a surface (i.e., is “suspended” over the surface) during a
process in which the flyheight of the MR element is determined. This
process is repeated at different write currents until “the head-to-disk spacing
is below the minimum flyheight” (col. 14, ll. 54-55) (FF). Since the process
is repeated, the “suspender” (i.e., the element that causes the MR element to
“hover” over the surface) is reused during each iteration of the process (until
“the process ends” – col. 14, l. 55). Since the process is repeated (i.e.,
“reused”) with the same “suspender,” the suspender is reusable. Hence,
Appeal 2010-002245
Application 11/542,354

6
contrary to Appellants’ assertion, Smith discloses that the “suspender” is, in
fact, “reusable.”
Claim 16 recites similar features as claim 3.

Claim 4
Appellants argue that Smith fails to disclose the features recited in
claim 4 because, according to Appellants, Smith discloses an apparatus and a
memory that is “inherent to a Hard Disk Drive and not inherent to a slider
level of assembly” (App. Br. 14). Hence, it appears Appellants argue that
Smith fails to disclose “a slider level of assembly.” We disagree with
Appellants for at least the reasons set forth by the Examiner (Ans. 6-7) and
for reasons set forth above.

Claim 6
Appellants argue that Smith fails to disclose the features of Claim 6
because, according to Appellants, “[t]he surface as claimed in Claim 6 is not
coupled to a disk coupled to a hard disk drive” (App. Br. 15). However,
claim 6 recites “moving said surface at intended linear velocity of a disk in
said hard disk drive.” Appellants do not meaningfully explain why that
recitation in claim 6 prohibits the surface from being “coupled to a disk
coupled to a hard disk drive,” as argued by Appellants. That argument,
which is not seemingly in accord with the requirements of claim 6, is
inadequate to show error in the Examiner’s explanation as to how and where
Appeal 2010-002245
Application 11/542,354

7
the particular features recited in claim 6 are accounted for in Smith (see Ans.
5).

Claim 7
Claim 7 recites an “interference bump” on the surface. Appellants
argue that Smith fails to disclose this feature but does not provide a
sufficient showing that the “bump” as disclosed by Smith (e.g., Fig. 2A,
element 30; col. 7, ll. 42-46) differs from the “interference bump” recited in
claim 7.
Appellants argue that the “bump” of Smith “cannot be compared to an
intentionally created, well defined interference bump on a surface” as recited
in claim 7 (Appl. Br. 15). While the Specification discloses one example in
which the interference bump may be created by a laser process (Spec. 16),
we note that neither the Specification nor claim 7 requires that the bump is
“intentionally created” or that the bump be “well defined” (or what
constitutes being “well defined”).
Since the “bump” as disclosed by Smith appears to be identical to the
“bump” as claimed and Appellants have not demonstrated otherwise, we
disagree with Appellants’ assertion that Smith fails to disclose this feature.
Claims 12, 19, and 25 recite similar features as claim 7.

Appeal 2010-002245
Application 11/542,354

8
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites “controlling the fly height of said slider.” Appellants
argue that Smith fails to disclose this feature. As described above, Smith
discloses varying the write current input to “control” the flyheight of the MR
element (FF 1). Appellants have not adequately indicated any difference
between Smith’s disclosure of controlling the flyheight of the MR element
(i.e., “slider”) and the seemingly identical claimed feature of controlling the
fly height of the slider.

Claim 9
Claim 9 recites “reducing operating atmospheric pressure for said low
flying slider detector.” The Examiner cites “col. 1, lines 31-39 of Smith”
(Ans. 5) for this feature as follows:
A slider body is typically designed as an aerodynamic lifting
body that lifts the transducer head off of the surface of the disk
as the rate of spindle motor rotation increases, and causes the
head to hover above the disk on an air-bearing produced by
high speed disk rotation. The distance between the head and
the disk surface, typically on the order of 50-100 nanometers
(nm), is commonly referred to as head-to-disk spacing.
(col. 1, ll. 31-39)
We note that the referenced portion of Smith merely discloses rotating
a disk under a head that hovers above the disk on an “air-bearing.”
However, the Examiner has not shown that Smith also discloses “reducing
Appeal 2010-002245
Application 11/542,354

9
operating atmospheric pressure” as recited in claim 9. Claim 20 recites a
similar feature as claim 9.
Therefore, the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 9 and 20.

CONCLUSION
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that Smith
discloses each limitation recited in claims 1-8, 10-19, and 21-30 but that the
Examiner erred in finding that Smith discloses each limitation recited in
claims 9 and 20.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8, 10-19, and
21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) but we reverse the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 9 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

rvb