Ex Parte Shang

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 29, 2010

10104386 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 29, 2010)

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.
10/104,386 03/21/2002 Ping Shang 4593-228 1935
23117 7590 09/30/2010
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
CASTRO, ANGEL A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2627
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2010 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 PING SHANG
____________

Appeal 2009-012348
Application 10/104,386
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN C. MARTIN and
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-012348
Application 10/104,386

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claim 1. We will affirm.
The disclosed invention relates to a reverse type of head gimbal
assembly (HGA) (Figs. 2.1, 2.2; Spec. 3-6; Abstract).
Claim 1 is the only claim on appeal, and it reads as follows:
1. A reverse type of HGA comprising a suspension, a flexure, a modified
flex cable, a slider, a plurality of traces, a plurality of bound pads, and a
plurality of bump pads;
wherein the plurality of bound pads and the plurality of bump pads of
the reverse type of HGA are provided exclusively and approximately near a
leading edge of the slider, and wherein at least one of said traces extends
under and generally along the longitudinal center of the slider.
The prior art2 relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Zeng US 6,697,216 B2 Feb. 24, 2004
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 for lack of written description.
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon
the teachings of Zeng.
Turning first to the lack of written description rejection, the Examiner
contends (Final Rej. 3) that “‘the plurality of bound pads and the plurality of
bump pads of the reverse type of HGA are provided exclusively and

2 The filing date of the applied reference is prior to the filing date of the
subject application.
Appeal 2009-012348
Application 10/104,386

3
approximately near a leading edge of the slider’” has no support in the
specification or the figures. Appellant argues (App. Br. 3) that the
description in the disclosure and the illustration in Figure 2.1 clearly
describes an embodiment that supports the noted limitations of claim 1. We
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4) that Figure 2.1, and the description of the
same in Appellant’s disclosure, does not provide written description support
for the noted limitation in claim 1 because “the ‘leading edge of the slider’ is
not indicated in the figures and not disclosed in the specification.” Thus, the
lack of written description rejection of claim 1 is sustained.
Turning next to the anticipation rejection, the Examiner contends
(Final Rej. 3; Ans. 3) that Zeng describes a reverse type of HGA wherein at
least one trace extends under and generally along the longitudinal center of
the slider, whereas Appellant argues (App. Br. 4, 5; Reply Br. 2, 3) that
Zeng neither shows nor describes a trace that “extends under and generally
along the longitudinal center of the slider.”
We agree with Appellant’s argument. As illustrated in Figures 11 to
16 of Zeng, none of the traces extend “under and generally along the
longitudinal center of the slider.”
In summary, the anticipation rejection is reversed because each and
every limitation in claim 1 is not found in the cited reference to Zeng. In re
Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.

Appeal 2009-012348
Application 10/104,386

4
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)(v).
AFFIRMED

KIS

NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C.
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203