Appeal No. 1999-0216
Application No. 08/526,197
Turning to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
independent claim 10 based on Axmear alone, we do not sustain
this rejection as well. In addressing the limitations of
claim 10, the Examiner asserts the well known aspects of
including a disk device in a housing for protective purposes.
Independent claim 10, however, includes identical limitations
as they appear in claims 1 and 7 directed to baseline
minimization, a feature which we found lacking in Axmear as
discussed supra.
With respect to the Fujiwara, Volz, and Schwarz
references, applied by the Examiner to address the 1/4 data
cylinder spacing, outer guard band recording, and magneto-
resistive head features of dependent claims 2, 3, 8, and 9, we
find nothing in any of these references which would overcome
the innate deficiencies previously discussed with regard to
Axmear. Accordingly, the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 is not sustained.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007