Ex parte MAEDA et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1997-2852                                                        
          Application No. 08/354,454                                                  


          rotatable about an axis parallel to the magneto-optical disc                
          and also moves in a direction perpendicular to the surface of               
          the disc, thereby applying magnetic fields of varying                       
          intensities.  Claim 4 is illustrative of the claimed                        
          invention, and it reads as follows:                                         
               4.   A magneto-optical disc apparatus for use with plural              
          discs requiring different magnetic field intensities,                       
          comprising:                                                                 
               a magnetic field generating source for applying a                      
          plurality of discrete magnetic field intensities individual to              
          one of said discs to a magneto-optical disc during reading or               
          writing, said magnetic field generating source being made                   
          freely rotatable about an axis substantially parallel to and                
          overlying a surface of said magneto-optical disc to allow                   
          rotating said source to change the direction of the field                   
          generated by said source relative to said disc; and                         
               means for changing a distance of said rotation central                 
          axis of said magnetic field generating source relative to said              
          magneto-optical disc, to provide said plurality of magnetic                 
          field intensities at said disc.                                             
               The prior art references of record relied upon by the                  
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:                              
          Naito et al. (Naito)          4,748,606                May  31,             
          1988                                                                        
          Miyatake et al. (Miyatake)    5,202,863                Apr. 13,             
          1993                                                                        
               Claims 2 through 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,               
          first paragraph, as being non-enabled.                                      

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007