Appeal No. 1998-1658
Application 08/343,876
We find that Shimizu '178 discloses a recording media, as
claimed, and that Shimizu '645 discloses a head, as claimed. As
to whether it would have been obvious to combine the recording
media of Shimizu '178 with the head of Shimizu '645, Appellants
argue that the combined disclosures fail to provide for a
magnetic recording and reproducing system like that claimed, and
also fail to provide any motivation to prepare the same (Br10).
The Examiner responds that all the references are within the same
field of endeavor, dynamic magnetic recording/reproducing, and a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
utilize the magnetic recording medium of Shimizu '178 with the
head of Shimizu '645 to prevent a high frequency bias from being
recorded (EA12).
We do not see where the Examiner obtained his reasoning
about preventing a high frequency bias from being recorded.
Nevertheless, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the
magnetic recording art would have been motivated to use the head
of Shimizu '645 with any known recording medium, such as
Shimizu '178, because heads are known to be used with widely
diverse types of recording media. In particular, Shimizu '645
describes a head for video recording (col. 1, lines 8-12) and
Shimizu '178 describes a recording medium for use in video tapes
(col. 1, lines 6-10), which is sufficient to suggest they could
be used together. Furthermore, Appellants admit that MIG heads
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007