Appeal No. 1998-2476
Application No. 08/074,485
controlled over the entire surface of the transducer array 36.
See column 3,
lines 28-43. Therefore, Toupin does not disclose or suggest
the claimed moving means.
The examiner rejects claims 115-117 at page 5 of the
final rejection. The examiner asserts, id., that “[h]e
[Toupin] teaches that the ‘cock angle’ is controllable with
respect to the movement of the medium, which is moved
reciprocally. On lines 63-65 of column 5, Toupin states that
‘relative motion . . . causes column [array] 66 to follow
tracks 64'.” Appellants at pages 28-36 of the brief discuss
each of the claims in detail. We agree with appellants’
analysis. In each of these claims, we note that the movement
of the recording medium and the recording read/write device is
claimed. Toupin shows only the recording medium moving in a
simple harmonic motion. The head in Toupin does not move as
claimed.
Therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection
of claims 114-117 by Toupin.
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007