Appeal No. 1998-2476
Application No. 08/074,485
Rather than repeat verbatim the arguments of appellants
and examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer 2
for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the
examiner and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise,
reviewed the appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief.
We reverse.
We consider the various grounds of rejection seriatim.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The examiner rejects claims 114, 119-130, 153, 178, 203,
and 228 as being indefinite for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicants
regard as the invention, final rejection at pages 3 and 4.
The examiner asserts that lines 5-6 of claim 114 are
confusing. They define, id., “means for reciprocating at
least one of the data read/write device and the magnetic
recording medium. As best understood, this statement
indicates that the reciprocating means operates either on the
2The reply brief was filed as Paper No. 33, however, the
examiner did not approve the entry of this reply brief in the
record. See Paper No. 35.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007