Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
The examiner appears to be saying that because it was
known that resistance is lowered by increasing the cross
sectional area of a conductor, it would have been obvious to
place an auxiliary track at a different level (above or below)
than conducting tracks. If this is the examiner’s reasoning,
the examiner did not need the Church reference as the instant
specification, itself, [at page 4] indicates that enlarging
cross sections of the windings would solve the prior art
problem of heat developing as a result of increased resistance
as connecting tracks and windings become smaller. However, as
the specification indicates, “[i]t is also very difficult to
enlarge the cross-sections of the windings, as this changes
the ratios between the height and the other head dimensions,
which may have detrimental effects.”
Thus, the problem of the prior art was known as was a
solution, i.e., increase cross-sectional area of the windings.
Therefore, the mere knowledge of the relationship between
cross-sectional area and resistance would not, per se, have
led the artisan to the solution claimed by appellants.
Appellants’ invention involves a very specific embodiment,
through the use
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007