Appeal No. 1997-3473
Application No. 08/331,684
the top paddle extends through aperture 16 (answer-top of page
4). (2) The Examiner further states:
Additionally, the area between insulation (13) and
(25), filled by the magnetic pole (12), as depicted
in FIGS. 12 and 13, is also considered to be a
cavity substantially containing a top magnetic pole
piece (12) in which a height of the top magnetic
pole piece (12) is “defined” by the depth of the
cavity. (Answer-page 4.)
And (3) where the Examiner states:
Alternatively, the insulation portion (28) is
considered to have a “cavity”, i.e., if the magnetic
head including portions (11-16, 21,22,25,26 and 81)
were removed, a cavity would exist. (Answer-page
4.)
Appellants argue that Kawabe’s aperture 16 is a contact
hole, and as such, does not define at least a portion of the
shape of the top paddle region (brief-page 5).
We agree with the Examiner that Kawabe’s contact hole 16
can be considered an aperture, and part of that aperture can
be looked upon as a cavity. “However, words of ordinary usage
must nonetheless be construed in the context of the patent
documents. Thus the court must determine how a person of
experience in the field of this invention would, upon reading
the patent documents, understand the words used to define the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007