Appeal No. 96-2618
Application 08/263,252
shown as spaced from the edge of screen 26. Lorteije does not
state how the screen 26 is secured in the gap, but clearly it
cannot "float" in space; one can speculate that the gap is
filled with glass or epoxy to cement the screen 26 in
position. We agree with Appellants that Lorteije appears to
disclose one of the admitted prior art methods of intercepting
leakage fluxes (Br8, referring to specification, page 4,
lines 22-24).
Appellants further argue that "[t]he magnetic screen in
Lorteije is mechanically secured between two magnetic heads,
perhaps to core 17, and is not a thin conductor film formed on
the face of the magnetic heads" (Br7). The Examiner
interprets the statement of "[secured,] perhaps to core 17" to
mean that Appellants are suggesting the screen 26 is attached
to the top of the slot 25, instead of the sides of the
slot 25, which the Examiner considers to be equally likely
(EA6-7).
The Examiner does not address the argument. How the
screen 26 is secured is not the issue. Lorteije shows a space
between the screen 26 and the three sides of the gap 25.
Because of this space, the screen 26 must be a separate piece
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007