Appeal No. 97-1166
Application 08/198,848
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejections advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellant’s
arguments set forth in the briefs along with the examiner's
rationale in support of the rejections and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner's answers.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the collective evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as set
forth in claims 1-20. Accordingly, we reverse.
We consider first the rejection of claims 1-9, 19 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over IBM in view of
Hitachi, Miura and Mowry. These claims stand or fall together
[brief, page 5]. IBM is cited by the examiner as a conventional
form of MR element which is situated on the bottom surface of a
slider. Hitachi is cited only to support the position that giant
MR elements were conventional in the art. Miura is cited to show
that it was known to spatially place electrical contacts in the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007