Appeal No. 97-1166
Application 08/198,848
magnetic track, there is clearly no current path in Miura which
spatially exists in the direction of the magnetic track.
The examiner also seems to suggest that the three contact
MR arrangement of Mowry, if substituted for Miura’s two contact
MR arrangement would result in the claimed invention. We do not
agree. In our view, Mowry would simply suggest to the artisan
that either one of the MR elements 11 and 12 of Miura could be
replaced by a three electrode MR element as taught by Mowry.
However, regardless of whether the Miura system uses a two
electrode MR element as shown therein or uses a three electrode
MR element as taught by Mowry, the variable current paths would
still flow only in a direction perpendicular to the track
direction and not in a direction along the magnetic track.
Since both independent claims 1 and 19 require the
presence of current paths which run spatially along the direction
of the magnetic track, and since none of the applied prior art
suggests such a current path despite the examiner’s assertions to
the contrary, the examiner has failed to present a case for the
obviousness of this claimed feature. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1-9, 19 and 20.
We now consider the rejection of claims 10-18 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over IBM in view of Hitachi,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007