Appeal No. 1998-0261
Application No. 08/438,319
which in turn is improved by “asymmetry of the leads 22, 24 [which] minimizes both inductive and
capacitive feedthrough into adjacent readers.” (Brief, page 3.) The claims at issue in the instant
anticipation rejection, however, do not recite anything about “asymmetry” of leads. As such, the
arguments are more specific than the claim requirements. The Claim 1 recitation “to enable servoing by
a given read element of a write element associated therewith” may be interpreted as merely requiring
that the recited heads are capable of having “asymmetrical” leads connected thereto.
Appellants’ specification may suggest another structural limitation related to the recited function
in Claim 1. As succinctly drawn at the bottom of page 1 of the specification, the “ability to servo” may
also be related to “writing with the center of read elements separated from the center of write
elements.” As disclosed by Schwarz, the center of the read elements are separated from the center of
the write elements in each respective set of read and write elements, in the arrangement of elements as
pointed out in the examiner’s rejection. The prior art structure of Schwarz thus enables “servoing by a
given read element of a write element associated therewith.”
Since appellants have not shown the examiner’s finding of anticipation to be in error, we sustain
the rejection. Since appellants have not argued the limitations of dependent claims separately (see 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(7)), we sustain the Section 102 rejection of Claims 1 and 5 through 8.
Section 103 rejection
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007