Appeal No. 1999-2235
Application No. 08/577,493
component of the magnetic signal that impinges upon the media
is greater than the maximum longitudinal component.
Similarly, independent claim 14 requires that the magnetic
signal "has a maximum strength felt by said media directed
transversely to said surface."
The examiner admits (Final Rejection, page 3) that
Chapman fails to disclose the perpendicular component of the
magnetic signal being larger than the component parallel to
the surface. In fact, Chapman does not discuss perpendicular
recording at all. The examiner (Final Rejection, page 3)
points to the teachings of Hamilton that thin film heads may
be used to record data on perpendicularly oriented media and
that the head must contact or nearly contact the media to
realize the full potential of the perpendicular recording.
The examiner further asserts (Final Rejection, page 3) that
because submicron gaps and small fly heights are known in the
art, it would have been obvious, in light of Hamilton's
disclosure, to provide such a small gap and fly height to
enable perpendicular recording. However, nowhere in either
the Final Rejection or the Answer does the examiner point to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007