Appeal No. 1998-0261
Application No. 08/438,319
specific. As the examiner aptly notes in the Answer, the claims define the contents of the first and
second module in terms of read and write head elements; the arrangement of elements as broadly
claimed is no different from that found in the reference.
The non-specificity of the word “module” is underscored by comparing the disclosure of
Schwarz with appellants’ arguments. Schwarz, in the description of the relevant embodiment at column
7, line 36 through column 8, line 26, refers to “read module 82” and “write module 84” depicted in
Figure 7. Appellants prefer to interpret the reference as disclosing “module” 120 (see Brief, page 5),
while Schwarz describes structure 120 as “head 120.”
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the use of the word “module” in the
claims distinguishes over the apparatus of Schwarz. Appellants submit another argument that refers to
the last function recited in Claim 1. “Schwarz says nothing about the servoing ability of his configuration
depicted in figure 7.” (Brief, page 5.)
That Schwarz says nothing about “servoing ability” is not dispositive. For a prior art reference
to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element of the claimed invention must be identically
shown in a single reference, but this is not an "ipsissimis verbis" test. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832,
15 USPQ2d 1566, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Appellants claim an apparatus; how the claim language
regarding “servoing ability” may limit the structure making up the apparatus is the relevant issue.
According to appellants, “same gap servoing” is permitted by improvement of the signal-to-noise ratio,
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007