Appeal No. 96-0496
Application No. 08/131,332
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious, within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. ' 103. For the following reasons, we
disagree.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 5
While Tadokoro discloses a “magnetic means” (8 in Figure 3;
8a and 8b in Figure 4), claim 5 requires “a pair of upper
initializing magnets disposed in parallel on the inner surface of
the upper arm of the yoke and a pair of lower initializing
magnets disposed in parallel on the inner surface of the lower
arm of the yoke…” [emphasis ours].
In order to provide for a pair of magnets in Tadokoro, the
examiner urges us to incorporate the bias magnet 9 disclosed
therein with the initializing magnet 8. However, not only has
the examiner failed to provide us with a cogent reason for doing
so (the rationale of “to increase and stabilize the effect of the
magnetic field of the initializing magnets” on page 4 of the
supplemental answer is not persuasive), but Tadokoro actually
teaches away from making such a combination. The bias magnet 9
is taught by Tadokoro as being part of the prior art to him and
Tadokoro’s disclosed invention “eliminates the need for an
external bias magnet 9 as in the prior art” [column 6, lines 14-
15]. Further, at column 6, lines 20-24, Tadokoro states that
…since the initializing magnet 8 is built into the
housing 11 of the information-carrying medium…there is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007