Appeal No. 98-0600
Application 08/541,441
magnetic shield members spaced from each of said
side surfaces and at a distance G between said
shield members wherein said distance S is less than
half of said distance G for preventing signal loss
caused by said shields shunting away incoming
transition flux from said magnetic medium; and
a dielectric layer disposed within said gap,
said dielectric layer extending from said sensing
surface to separate said sensing surface from said
surface of said magnetic medium on which data
signals are recorded which are to be read out by
said transducer.
Opinion
The rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-7 cannot be
sustained. A reversal of the rejection on appeal should not
be construed as an affirmative indication that the appellants’
claims are patentable over prior art. We address only the
positions and rationale as set forth by the examiner and on
which the examiner’s rejection of the claims on appeal is
based.
The examiner has the initial burden to present a factual
basis supporting the conclusion of prima facie obviousness.
As is stated by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967):
A rejection based on section 103 clearly must
rest on a factual basis, and these facts must be
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007