Appeal No. 96-2618
Application 08/263,252
mounted (somehow) in the gap. The screen 26 cannot be a film
formed on a face of the magnetic head because it does not
touch the head. As Appellants note (Br8), the film formed on
the head allows the distance between heads to be minimized as
compared to the admitted prior art, represented by Lorteije,
of a plate.
The Examiner has not made any arguments that figure 4 of
Lorteije is not to scale and that the gaps between the
screen 26 and the gap 25 are greatly exaggerated. Nor has the
Examiner argued that it would have been obvious to put a film
on the heads in view of Lorteije's teaching of using a screen
to prevent crosstalk. The rejection relies completely on the
erroneous finding that screen 26 is a film formed on a face of
the magnetic head. The Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. The rejection of claim 5 is
reversed.
Claims 6, 7, 11, and 12
The Examiner applies Sanyo to teach the materials,
resistance, and thickness of claims 6, 7, 11, and 12. The
Examiner's statement of the rejection using Sanyo does not
address the deficiencies of the rejection of claim 5. The
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007