Appeal No. 1996-3811
Application 08/188,078
non-magnetic seedlayers were used in heads other than the
type shown in Frey. Appellants' statement that the prior
art known to Appellants used magnetic seedlayers does not
prove that all seedlayers were magnetic since an applicant
is not necessarily aware of all relevant prior art.
However, Kaminaka is silent about the material of the
seedlayer; thus, it does not disclose or suggest
non-magnetic seedlayers.
Appellants argue (Br8, Sec. C) that even if one were to
add Frey's wedge and bottom non-magnetic seedlayer, the
combination would still not disclose a non-magnetic
seedlayer for the upper pole piece. The Examiner states
that the rejection is not based on the incorporation of the
wedge of Frey into Kaminaka, but that "Frey et al is relied
upon only for teaching that magnetic seedlayers can perturb
the readback waveform and that non-magnetic seedlayers can
alleviate such a problem" (EA8). We disagree with the
Examiner's findings about the teachings of Frey as discussed
infra. In our opinion, Frey suggests modifying the bottom
pole of Kaminaka to have an angle for the purpose of
reducing the secondary pulse, which would require the
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007