Appeal No. 1999-1539
Application 08/584,118
USPQ2d 1281, 1285 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of
this court to examine the claims in greater detail than argued
by an appellant, looking for nonobviousness distinctions over
the prior art.”); In re Wiechert, 370 F.2d 927, 936, 152 USPQ
247, 254 (CCPA 1967)(“This court has uniformly followed the
sound rule that an issue raised below which is not argued in
that court, even if it has been properly brought here by
reason of appeal is regarded as abandoned and will not be
considered. It is our function as a court to decide disputed
issues, not to create them.”).
The examiner rejects claims 4 to 9, 13 and 14 as being
unpatentable over Canon in view of Sundaram at pages 5 and 6
of the final rejection. The examiner uses Sundaram for the
teaching that a gap layer would include read and write tracks
and that a magnetic head could be used in a tape recording
environment. See page 5 of the final rejection. However, we
note that neither Canon nor Sundaram provides for the
deficiency noted above regarding the inverse geometry of the
gap layers on the substrate and the closure element.
Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
these claims over Canon and Sundaram.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007