Appeal No. 96-1631
Application 08/136,997
Schneider et al. (Schneider) 3,983,622 Oct. 5, 1976
Mersing 4,839,959 Jun. 20, 1989
McClure 4,868,697 Sep. 19, 1989
Milo et al. (Milo) 4,949,208 Aug. 14, 1990
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11 and 16 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Milo in view of Mersing
and McClure. Claims 6 and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Milo in view of Mersing and
McClure and further in view of Schneider.
OPINION
The claims all recite a magnetic head with magnetic
core pole tips extending to recess sidewalls which are
perpendicular to the tape running direction, no non-magnetic
material being provided therebetween.
None of the references disclose such an arrangement.
The primary reference, Milo, shows in Figure 3 pole tips which do
not extend to the perpendicular sidewalls. Rather, non-magnetic
material 67 is provided therebetween. The examiner concedes this
difference and illustrates it in Appendix A of the Examiner’s
Answer.
Even without such a teaching in any reference, the
examiner contends, the recited configuration would have been
obvious as a result of “routine optimization.” The examiner
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007