Appeal No. 1997-3548
Application No. 08/457,200
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we agree with appellants that the prior
art cited by the examiner fails to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness for the claimed subject matter.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's rejection.
The examiner acknowledges that Fukke, the primary
reference, does not disclose the use of coated composite
particles, and that the Homola patents, the secondary
references, while teaching the use of a coating of colloidal
particles on magnetic particles, teach the use of a silica
coating rather than the presently claimed aluminum hydrous
oxide coating. To remedy the deficiency of the combined
teachings of Fukke and the Homola patents, the examiner relies
upon the disclosure of Kratohvil regarding the coating of
magnetizable particles with aluminum hydrous oxide.
The flaw in the examiner's reasoning is that there is no
teaching or suggestion in Kratohvil that the disclosed coated
particles may be used in a magnetic recording medium. While
the examiner cites Sang et al. (Patent No. 5,039,559), which
is referenced at page 3 of appellants' specification, for
teaching the equivalency of silicon oxide and aluminum oxide
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007