Appeal No. 96-2513
Application 08/037,064
the media-contact side of the recording head, the contact pad 34
totally surrounds the pole tip portion 32a (see also Figure C).
Thus, except for the contact pad's not having a dual layer
construction, the configuration is similar to the appellants'
structure and readily satisfies that required by claim 23:
"a head supported within the carrier for reading or
writing data on the disk, the head having a pole piece
extending through the inner wear layer and into the
outer wear layer."
We reject the argument that even if contact pad layer 34 were
made of two layers having different wear resistance, it would
have no effect.
But in order to support the case for prima facie
obviousness, the prior art must reasonably suggest forming the
contact pad 34 as two separate layers, a plasma-enhanced chemical
vapor deposited or sputter-deposited homogenous outer layer and a
plasma-enhanced chemical vapor deposited or sputter-deposited
homogenous inner layer. Additionally, the wear resistance of the
inner layer must be higher than that of the outer layer. The EP
Reference does not satisfy either of these claim requirements.
With regard to Cullen, the examiner correctly found (answer
at 3):
Cullen et al shows a wear resistant surface for
magnetic [recording] heads wherein the protective layer
wears rapidly at first but then the wear rate drops
-4-4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007