Appeal No. 1997-3158
Application No. 08/490,553
The requirement of claim 1 that the yokes do not overlap
anywhere else but at the gap is apparently of no interest to
Ju. Therefore, we simply have no basis to conclude, as the
examiner apparently has, that the yokes in Ju do not overlap
anywhere but at the gap.
Furthermore, we find no cogent rationale presented by the
examiner as to why the skilled artisan would have combined the
teachings of Yamada and Ju since they deal with different
structures and, even if combined, we fail to see how the
instant claimed subject matter would be achieved. That is,
why modify the structure of Yamada so drastically as to have
the yoke pieces of Yamada overlap? If the purpose is to
“achieve submicron track widths,” as contended by the
examiner, it is unclear why the artisan would look to Ju since
Yamada itself discloses a way to reduce the track width, i.e.,
reduce the thickness of the yokes [column 1, lines 59-60 of
Yamada].
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 through 4
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007