Appeal No. 1999-2235
Application No. 08/577,493
Claims 1 through 6, 8, 10, and 14 through 20 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Chapman in view of Hamilton.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chapman in view of Hamilton and Frey.
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 22,
mailed January 26, 1999) for the examiner's complete reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper
No. 21, filed November 9, 1998) for appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1
through 8, 10, and 14 through 20.
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, "a
magnetic signal from said transducer impinges upon said media
layer with a strength oriented substantially perpendicular to
said surface that is larger than a maximum strength oriented
parallel to said surface." In other words, the perpendicular
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007