Appeal No. 96-1078
Application No. 07/960,887
Turning first to the lack of enablement rejection, the
examiner’s objection to appellants' disclosure (Answer, pages
3 and 4) does not include a reason for questioning the lack of
an upper limit for the vertical coercive force and the
saturation magnetic flux density. We agree with the
appellants (Brief, pages 4 and 5) that the disclosed and
claimed invention only requires a lower limit for the vertical
coercive force and the saturation magnetic flux density, and
that it is not necessary to set an upper limit for the
vertical coercive force and the saturation magnetic flux
density. The lack of enablement rejection of claims 1 through
11 is reversed.
Before turning to the prior art rejections, we make note
of the fact that the claim 1 limitation "for recording a
perpendicular magnetic recording medium having a perpendicular
magnetic film which contains CoPt and which has a vertical
coercive force of at least 1500 Oe" sets forth a statement of
an intended use of the "perpendicular magnetic recording2
2The portion of claim 1 following the phrase "by use of"
is probably a statement of intended use of the same
"perpendicular magnetic recording apparatus" (Supplemental
Answer, page 3).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007