Appeal No. 1998-2476
Application No. 08/074,485
by the moving head of McClure. We note that such an
arrangement would result in the destruction of Toupin’s
device. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 115-144, 149-169, 174-194, 199-219, and
224-230 over McClure and Toupin.
Smith and Gerry
The examiner rejects claim 118 as being obvious over
Smith in view of Gerry at pages 7 and 8 of the final
rejection. The examiner asserts, id. at 8, that “it would
have been obvious . . . to record data along zigzag tracks, as
taught by Gerry . . . .” Appellants respond at pages 44-48 of
the brief that claim 118 contains, brief at 45, the limitation
of “moving means for alternately moving the magnetic head and
the magnetic recording medium in a simple harmonic motion
during a reading or writing operation,” which the examiner has
not even addressed in his rejection. Appellants also argue
that the zigzag pattern asserted by the examiner is not shown
by the combination, because the recording surface 53 (Figure
4) in Gerry does not move at all let alone move in a zigzag
fashion. See Figures 6a through 6h of Gerry. We agree with
appellants’ position. We note that the proposed combination
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007