Appeal No. 96-0775
Application 07/990,769
yes, but the question, as well as the answer, have little or no
relevance to the claimed invention. The answer to the question
in ground number 3 is probably yes, but again the answer is not
relevant to the specifically claimed invention before us on
appeal. In ground number 4, a permanent magnet may not be the 3
most appropriate transverse bias source if a variable bias source
is needed for appellants' disclosed and claimed invention. On
the other hand, the other bias sources disclosed by appellants
are assumed to be appropriate bias sources for the disclosed and
claimed invention. In ground number 5, we likewise fail to see
the relevance of the shielding question to the claimed4
invention. Thus, the examiner has not provided a convincing case
that the disclosed and claimed invention is not enabled. The
lack of enablement rejection of claims 2, 3, 9 and 10 is
reversed.
Turning to the prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b), the examiner indicates (Answer, pages 5 through 7) that
Mowry and Tanabe both disclose magnetic heads which include an
3See column 2, lines 26 through 33 of Mowry, and column 9,
lines 16 through 48 of Tanabe for the use of permanent magnet
bias sources in connection with magnetoresistive heads.
4Figure 1A of the drawing shows a magnetic shield at
reference numeral 2. A brief discussion of a shield can be found
at column 3, lines 36 through 39 of Mowry.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007