11351824 (B.P.A.I. May. 16, 2012)

Ex Parte Zeng

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMay 16, 2012

11351824 (B.P.A.I. May. 16, 2012)

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. 11/351,824 02/09/2006 Qinghua Zeng HSJ920050057US1 3065 45552 7590 05/16/2012 HITACHI C/O WAGNER BLECHER LLP 123 WESTRIDGE DRIVE WATSONVILLE, CA 95076 EXAMINER MILLER, BRIAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2627 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/16/2012 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 QINGHUA ZENG ____________ Appeal 2010-002830 Application 11/351,824 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-002830 Application 11/351,824 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 9-11, 14, 16, 17, 20-22, 24, 25, 28 and 29. Claims 2, 5-8, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 23, 26, and 27 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Invention Appellants’ invention relates to a slider air bearing for mobile drives. Title. Representative Claim Claim 1. A head slider for a magnetic disk drive, said slider comprising a leading edge and a trailing edge of an air bearing surface, said head slider further comprising: a first recess on said air bearing surface of said head slider; and a second recess on said air bearing surface of said head slider wherein said first recess is deeper than said second recess and is closer to said leading edge than said second recess and wherein said second recess is closer to said trailing edge than said first recess. Prior Art Boutaghou US 6,674,612 B2 Jan. 6, 2004 Appeal 2010-002830 Application 11/351,824 3 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Boutaghou. Claims 9, 20, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Boutaghou. Claim Groupings Based on Appellants’ arguments presented in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claim 1. PRINCIPAL ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Boutaghou describes “a first recess on said air bearing surface of said head slider; and a second recess on said air bearing surface of said head slider” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 29 Appellants contend that Boutaghou does not describe “a first recess on said air bearing surface of said head slider; and a second recess on said air bearing surface of said head slider” as recited in claim 1. In particular, Appellants contend that recess 4 of Boutaghou is on a forward edge, not an air bearing surface. Br. 9-10. Appellants’ Specification states that “Figure 3 is a bottom view of a first disk drive slider 300 (e.g., the air bearing surface)….” Spec. 8. The term “air bearing surface,” when read in light of the Specification, Appeal 2010-002830 Application 11/351,824 4 encompasses the bottom of a disk drive slider. The recess 4 of Boutaghou contains a vertical portion that faces the forward edge of the slider, and a horizontal portion that is on the bottom, or “air bearing surface,” of the slider within the meaning of claim 1. Appellants also contend that the detailed description of Boutaghou does not reference the unnumbered recess depicted below reference numeral 6 of Figure 2. Br. 10. However, Appellants have not provided evidence or persuasive argument to distinguish the unnumbered recess shown in Figure 2 of Boutaghou from the “second recess” recited in claim 1. We agree with the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellants have not presented arguments for separate patentability of claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 29, which fall with claim 1. Section 103 rejection of claims 9, 20, and 28. Appellants present arguments for patentability of claims 9, 20, and 28 similar to those presented for claim 1, which we find unpersuasive. Appeal 2010-002830 Application 11/351,824 5 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Boutaghou describes “a first recess on said air bearing surface of said head slider; and a second recess on said air bearing surface of said head slider” as recited in claim 1. DECISION The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Boutaghou is affirmed. The rejection of claims 9, 20, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Boutaghou 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED kis