Appeal No. 96-2513
Application 08/037,064
For several reasons, Grill does not make up for the
deficiencies of the combination of the EP Reference, Cullen and
Oonishi. First, the wear resistance of Grill's adhesion layer is
not described in Grill because its purpose is to bond the outer
layer of hydrogenated carbon to the magnetic head slider. Grill
does not reasonably suggest that the wear resistance of the
adhesion layer should be higher than that of the hydrogenated
carbon layer. Secondly, Grill's adhesion layer does not serve
the same purpose as Cullen's embedded diamond particles. Thus,
the fact that Cullen's diamond particles have a higher wear
resistance than the exposed metal matrix would not have suggested
that Grill's adhesion layer should have a higher wear resistance
than the hydrogenated carbon layer. Third, Grill's magnetic
recording head has no pole piece which extends through the
protective layer 22 like that required by the claims and shown in
the EP Reference. Grill indicates that without the protective
layer, contact between the head and the recording medium is
"inadvertent" (column 4, line 54). It is unlike the claimed
invention which is directed to a contact recording rigid disk
-10-10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007