Appeal No. 96-1078
Application No. 07/960,887
apparatus." A statement of intended use in an apparatus claim
does not distinguish that claim over a prior art apparatus.
In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431
(Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 580, 152 USPQ
235, 238 (CCPA 1967). In other words, claim 1 appears to be
directed to the record head and not to the combination of
magnetic recording medium and record head.
As indicated supra, the examiner relied on Shiroishi and
Watanabe in the first prior art rejection of claim 1 and the
claims that depend therefrom. Shiroishi is concerned with in-
plane coercivity of a magnetic recording medium that contains
CoPt (column 4, lines 12 through 21; column 8, lines 53
through 66). According to Shiroishi, the in-plane coercivity
of the magnetic medium is not less than 1500 Oe (column 6,
lines 1 through 5; column 8, lines 63 through 66). Although
Watanabe discloses a perpendicular magnetic recording medium,
that medium is CoCr (column 6, lines 38 through 47; claim 1 ). 3
The ring core head 14 in Watanabe has a saturation magnetic
flux density of over 7000G (7kG) (column 18, lines 6 through
3It is noted that Watanabe uses the same intended use
claim format as appellants.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007