Appeal No. 95-4711
Application 08/128,053
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following prior art:
Sato et al. (Sato) 4,500,932 Feb. 19, 1985
Higurashi 4,562,492 Dec. 31,
1985
Philipps 5,051,847 Sep. 24, 1991
OPINION
Claims 1, 2, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Philipps in view of Higurashi. Claim
3 depends from claim 1 and stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Philipps in view of Higurashi as
applied to claim 1, further in view of Sato.
The examiner proposes to add Higurashi’s lower band
suppression and emphasis means to the inside of Philipps’
drum. However, the proposed combination does not produce the
claimed invention. The claims recite a magnetic recording and
reproducing apparatus having lower band suppression means
inside a drum and a complementary lower band emphasis means
outside the drum. The examiner’s combination would place the
suppression means and the emphasis means both inside the drum.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007