Appeal No. 96-3893
Application 08/063,302
second halves" of the claimed head assembly. That appellants
agree with this interpretation is evidenced by their statement
that "back core 9 . . . supports the two halves of the magnetic
head" (Brief at p. 11, lines 8-9). Thus, neither the examiner
nor the appellants construe claim 1 as requiring that the
magnetic metal cores of the claimed first and second halves form
a closed magnetic path (but for the gap) in the absence of the
claimed auxiliary film, as is the case in both of appellants'
disclosed embodiments. Nor do appellants make such an argument
with respect to claim 15, which even more specifically recites
"first and second C-shaped halves." Thus, the examiner and the2
appellants agree that Terada satisfies all of the requirements of
claim 1 except for the presence of an auxiliary film of soft
magnetic material selected such that the product of the film's
relative permeability and thickness is above 3000. For these
limitations, the examiner relies principally on Ihara, which
discloses a metal-in-gap (MIG) magnetic head consisting of two
ferrite core halves 2 and 2' which are held in abutment to form a
gap 1 therebetween. These ferrite core halves may be formed of a
"Mn-Zn or Ni-Zn soft magnetic ferrite" (col. 5, lines 35-36).
2Although appellants' brief states (at 9) that each of the
claims is separately argued, claim 15 is in fact argued (at 13)
as standing or falling with claim 1.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007