Appeal No. 97-3469
Application 08/188,427
Mowry and should be ignored in determining the
patentability of the invention.
The examiner responds that appellants' arguments are
"irrelevant because the read gap 72 defined by contacts 58 is
clearly 'within the shadow' of pole tip 48, which defines the
smallest width of the writing means and is considered to read
on the appended claim language" (SEA2).
We agree with appellants that Mowry does not support a
finding that the write gap is wider than the width of the top
magnetic pole tip 48 and the examiner also appears to concede
this point. Mowry shows the width of the write gap defined by
the width of the top magnetic pole tip 50 as very slightly
greater than the width of the read gap defined by the distance
between contacts 58. It is difficult to support findings
based on the drawings. See In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127,
193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977) ("Absent any written description
in the specification of quantitative values, arguments based
on measurement of a drawing are of little value.");
In re Wilson, 312 F.2d 449, 454, 136 USPQ 188, 192 (CCPA 1962)
("Patent drawings are not working drawings."). Because there
is no discussion of the relative widths of the write gap and
read gap, no finding can be made that the elements in figure 4
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007