Appeal No. 1997-0447
Application No. 08/231,513
Pacemakers, Inc., 721 F.2d 1563, 1567, 220 USPQ 97, 101 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. Upon evaluation of all
the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the evidence adduced by the examiner is
not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner has recognized that the prior art to Shibata does not teach the
improvement claimed in the language of claim 1. (See answer at page 3.) We agree with
the examiner that Shibata does not teach or disclose “a connecting length L1
between the magnetic reluctance effect element and the forward side electrode is shorter
than a facing length L2 over which the upper magnetic pole and the magnetic reluctance
effect element face each other via a magnetic gap G” as set forth in claim 1.
The examiner maintains that the improvement would have been obvious to skilled artisans
and provides a line of reasoning therefore. (See answer at pages 3-4.) Appellants argue
that Shibata teaches the width of the electrical contact with the MR element to be greater
than the width of the gap which is contrary to the claimed
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007