Appeal No. 97-3469
Application 08/188,427
writing), and do not recite a read gap width less than the
write gap width as the structure to accomplish the result.
Claim 1 requires this structure because of the "means for
reading information" language. However, absent prior art
showing some other structure for keeping the read gap within
the shadow of the write gap at all radial positions,
appellants are entitled to claim broadly. The specification
discusses an actuator controller to compensate for skew angle
(specification, page 2, lines 13-14); presumably this
controller does not cause the read gap to stay within the
shadow of the write gap.
For the reasons stated above, the §§ 102(e) and 103
rejections of claims 1, 6, 11, and 15-30 are reversed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 17-24 and 27-30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, is reversed.
The rejections of claims 1, 6, 11, and 15-30 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and/or § 103 are reversed.
REVERSED
- 13 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007