Appeal No. 96-1707
Application 08/221,999
concerning claim 31, 14 and 34, the Examiner briefly discusses the limitations in the
answer at pages 7-8 and 15. The Examiner has not discussed the specific location of the
elements, but considers placement of either type of head as an obvious choice with a
combination of the two types of heads in the combined teachings. (See answer at pages
7-8.) We agree with the Examiner. Appellant cites to the article for support of the
increase of stability and productivity, but does not show support in the originally filed
specification. Appellant has not argued claim 14 separately, therefore it is treated with
claims 31 and 34. (See 37 CFR 1.192(c)(7).)
With respect to appellant's argument to claim 36, the Examiner has set forth a
response which discusses the use of a ferrite substrate which would obviate the need for
the second lower yoke on top of the substrate. (See brief at pages 18-19.) Therefore, the
first and second magnetic heads would contact the same surface of the substrate and
would be linear in the combination, as the Examiner has stated. We agree.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 7-9, 11, 13,14, 29-34
and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. The decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 10, 12 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. The decision of the Examiner is
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007