Appeal No.95-2807
Application 07/944,653
the magnetic gaps are inherently disclosed in the Favrou
patent inasmuch as one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized from Favrou’s specification and drawings, as well as
the prior art as shown in Figure 3 of appellant’s drawings, that
the Favrou’s transducers are each of the type incorporating a
magnetic gap. See Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d
1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991). This view is
reinforced by the fact that in illustrations of the prior art,
such as Figure 3 of appellant’s drawings, the magnetic gap in the
core structure is simply illustrated as a relatively thick line
between pole pieces similar to the illustration in the Favrou
patent.
Furthermore, appellant’s arguments in the second full
paragraph on page 4 of the brief are unpersuasive. As stated by
our reviewing court in In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d
1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989), “[d]uring patent examination the
pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms
reasonably allow.”
Applying the foregoing principle to the present case, the
recitation of a magnetic head in appealed claim 1 is broad enough
to read on what appears to be non-unitary head structures
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007