Appeal No.95-2807
Application 07/944,653
Toshimitsu 3 JP 57-176521 Oct. 29, 1982
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Favrou, claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Favrou in view of
Toshimitsu, claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Toshimitsu alone and claims 7 and 8
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Toshimitsu in view of Favrou or Takanohashi.
With regard to the rejection of claims 3 and 4, the examiner
concludes that the teachings of Toshimitsu would have made it
obvious to provide Favrou’s head device with a pad for pressing
the tape against a predetermined portion of the tape sliding
surface. With regard to claim 5, the examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to enlarge Toshimitsu’s pad 5 to cover
the offset magnetic gap 2a in Figures 3-5 of the drawings of the
reference to cause the tape to run over the head surface “in a
more accurate and precise manner” (answer, page 4). Reference is
made to the examiner’s answer for further details of the standing
rejections.
Considering first the § 102 rejection of claim 1, it is well
3A copy of a translation of this reference is attached.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007