Appeal No. 1998-2517
Application 08/317,129
denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
This rejection is briefly set forth on page 5 of the
answer. Appellants argue that there are elements recited in
these claims which are not disclosed in Miyazaki.
Specifically, appellants argue that the cooperative
relationship recited in the claims for determining the widest
head is clearly missing from Miyazaki. Appellants also argue
that the determination in Miyazaki of the head having the
greatest read signal amplitude is not the same as determining
which head writes the widest because all heads do not have the
same sensitivity [brief, pages 8-15]. In response the
examiner amplifies on how he perceives the disclosure of
Miyazaki to meet the invention of claim 24 [answer, pages 12-
14].
After a careful review of the Miyazaki disclosure, the
claimed invention, the arguments of appellants and the
arguments of the examiner, we agree with appellants that
Miyazaki fails to disclose every element of the claimed
invention. We will not explain our position in detail because
it corresponds substantially to appellants’ arguments as set
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007