Appeal No. 95-2917
Application 08/082,895
partially overlaps said MRE; the flux density at
said MRE during writing being equal to or less
than about 10,000 gauss, whereby destabilization
of said MRE when writing with said write head is
prevented.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Kira et al. (Kira) 4,803,581 Feb. 07,
1989
Mowry 4,891,725 Jan. 02, 1990
Mallary 4,907,113 Mar. 06, 1990
Claims 1 and 3 through 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Mowry in view of Mallary and
Kira. On page 8 of the Examiner's answer, the Examiner sets
forth a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph. In this new ground, the specification is objected
to under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for failing to
provide an enabling disclosure and the claims are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set
forth in the objection to the specification.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answers for the2 3
2Appellants filed an appeal brief on August 1, 1994. We will refer to
this appeal brief as simply the brief. Appellants filed a reply appeal brief
on December 22, 1994. In a supplemental answer, mailed December 16, 1997, the
Examiner responded to the above reply brief, thereby entering the reply brief
into the record. Appellants filed a reply appeal brief on March 2, 1998. The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007