Appeal No. 1999-2276
Application 08/785,802
prima facie case of obviousness has been established, the
burden of going forward shifts to the applicant.”).
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. See
Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1445, 24 USPQ2d at 1444 (“In reviewing the
examiner’s decision on appeal, the Board must necessarily weigh
all of the evidence and argument.”). With these principles in
mind, we now turn to consider Appellant’s claims in conjunction
with Appellant’s drawings reproduced herein for quick reference.
Appellant first revisits the problem with the APA and states
that in the APA the claimed “defined distance” could not be
defined; the magnetic flux extended into the core a much longer
distance and expanded to a greater width than shown in Figure 3
(which shows the extension of the flux in core 62 of the present
invention). Brief at page 5, lines 3-9. Continuing, the
Appellant states that the distance that the flux influenced the
recording medium and the width to which the influence extended
could not be controlled and therefore was not definable. Brief
at page 5, lines 9-11. By moving the grooves to the core 62,
the inventor found that the distance could be controlled and
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007