Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
if we consider element 81a to be the claimed “first connecting
track,” as the examiner recognizes, Imanaka simply does not
show or suggest a “first auxiliary track” and a “second
connecting track,” as claimed. While the examiner contends
that it would have been obvious to provide such in Imanaka
because thin-film magnetic heads having a coil of a multi-
layer structure were well known, we do not find the notoriety
of multi-layer structures in a thin-film magnetic head to have
been sufficient motivation to modify Imanaka as the examiner
proposes in order to arrive at the instant claimed invention.
Imanaka mentions “a coil of a multi-layer structure.” Merely
because the coil is, or may be, of a multi-level structure, we
find no nexus between such a teaching and the proposed
modification of Imanaka to provide for a first auxiliary track
and a second connecting track, having the claimed
relationship.
With regard to the claimed requirement of providing the
connecting track and its corresponding winding on the same
level, we find the examiner’s attempt to provide for such in
Imanaka merely because Matsumoto shows connecting tracks on
the same level as the windings to be nothing short of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007