Appeal No. 1996-3811
Application 08/188,078
Frey teaches that shaping the magnetic poles at an
acute angle helps preserve the waveform by lengthening the
secondary pulses in the readback signal and, hence, reducing
the significance of the secondary pulses within a readback
window waveform (col. 2, line 65, to col. 3, line 5; figure
4). We find no factual evidence in Frey to support the
Examiner's finding that a magnetic seedlayer formed in
contact with a magnetic pole may perturb the waveform more
than the magnetic pole itself. Frey does not teach or
suggest that the thickness of the pole perturbs the
waveform. Therefore, it appears that the Examiner's
reasoning is based on hindsight.
The motivation in the prior art to combine the
references does not have to be identical to that of the
applicant to establish obviousness. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d
688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (in banc),
overruling in part In re Wright, 848 F.2d 1216,
6 USPQ2d 1959 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Thus, the fact that Frey
does not disclose the problem discovered by Appellants (that
the magnetic seedlayer increases the external magnetic force
on the magnetic layers, thereby increasing the likelihood
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007