Appeal No. 96-2513
Application 08/037,064
recording on thermally sensitive paper are directed to different
fields of endeavor. The examiner has not taken a contrary
position or asserted otherwise and we see no reason to disagree
with the appellants.
The appellants also have reasonably questioned (Br. at 6)
the pertinence of Oonishi with respect to the problem the
appellants' invention was intended to solve, i.e., initial
alignment of the magnetic recording head's pole structure with
the recording disk. The examiner has not explained why an
antifriction layer on the surface of a thermal recording head for
printing on thermally sensitive paper would be reasonably
pertinent to that problem and we do not think it is. Note that
in Oonishi's thermal recording head for printing on thermally
sensitive paper, the antifriction layer 6 or 18 do not have any
pole piece or other structure extending therethrough as is
required by appellants' claims.
Evidently, the examiner has not maintained that Oonishi
constitutes analogous art. Note that in response to the non-
analogous art argument of the appellants, the examiner (answer
at 8) stated:
It is the examiner's position that the reference to
Oonishi (sic, Onishi) has been relied upon to show that
multiple wear layer deposition techniques exist.
Regardless of the field of art that Oonishi (sic,
-7-7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007