Ex parte IIZUKA et al. - Page 5




          Appeal No. 1997-3157                                                        
          Application No. 08/286,224                                                  


               While the Japanese ‘871 and Asano references                           
               coincidentally individually teach (D-L) values which                   
               may meet one of the upper or lower limits of the                       
               stated parametric range, such teachings are purely                     
               coincidental and there is no pattern of teachings                      
               which in any way results in the derivation of both                     
               the upper and lower limit or the connection between                    
               the subject parameters and the constant floating                       
               height thereby effected.  Instead, each of these                       
               references is clearly outside at least one of these                    
               limits.  Since there is no suggestion in the                           
               references for the upper and lower limits of the                       
               claimed range in the Asano and Japanese ‘871                           
               references, and since there is no motivation for                       
               combining the Japanese ‘871 and Asano references                       
               found in the teachings of these references                             
               themselves, it is respectfully submitted, that the                     
               outstanding rejection is based purely on hindsight.                    
                    Regarding the applied Hatch et al ‘241 and                        
               Sugahara et al ‘338 references, the outstanding                        
               grounds for rejection based on these references                        
               acknowledge that neither of these references teaches                   
               the relationship stated in Appellants’ claim 1.  To                    
               remedy these deficiencies in the Hatch et al ‘241                      
               and Sugahara et al ‘338 references, the outstanding                    
               grounds for rejection summarily concludes that it                      
               would [be] obvious to pick values of “D”, “L” and                      
               “W” of the disc drive to satisfy the condition set                     
               forth in claim 1 in order to “provide a higher                         
               density recording disc drive” and in order “to                         
               maintain the constant sensitivity of the magnetic                      
               head in order to provide a higher density recording                    
               disc drive.”[8] Yet, the Official Action fails to                      
               identify a single teaching in the references                           
               suggesting that the parameters “D”, “L” and “W” are                    
               relevant to the provision of “a higher density                         
               recording disc drive” or “to maintain the constant                     
               sensitivity of the magnetic head” and the only                         
               source of such teachings is Appellants’ disclosure.                    
               It is therefore respectfully submitted that clearly                    
                                          5                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007