Appeal No. 94-3857
Application 07/740,708
Kawashima and Diepers.
We refer to the Brief and Reply Brief and to the Answer for
a complete exposition of the respective viewpoints expressed by
the appellants and the examiner concerning the above noted
rejection.
We cannot sustain this rejection. As properly argued by the
appellants in their Briefs, the applied prior art contains no
teaching or suggestion concerning the desirability of or a
methodology for decreasing both saturation induction and coercive
force in the easy axes direction from a surface of the magnetic
recording medium to the nonmagnetic substrate which is a
requirement of all the appealed claims. Further, none of the
applied references nor the nonapplied Sugita patent referred to
on page 6 of the Answer reasonably supports the examiner’s
inherency position. See Ex parte Skinner, 2 USPQ2d 1788, 1789
(Bd.Pat.App. & Int. (1986) (examiner must provide evidence or
scientific reasoning to establish the reasonableness of his
belief that functional limitation is inherent characteristic of
prior art). Further details regarding these deficiencies of the
examiner’s rejection may be found in the appellants’ Briefs of
record.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007