Appeal No. 1999-2276
Application 08/785,802
defined. Brief at page 5, lines 12-13. In conclusion, the
Appellant argues that nothing in the APA suggests moving the
grooves to the core. Brief at page 5, line 14. Moreover,
Appellant argues that the Mori prior art does not recognize the
connection between moving the grooves to the core 62, and
controlling and defining the distance. Brief at page 5, lines
15-16.
The Examiner, after reviewing Appellant’s Figures 1A and 1B
and Mori’s Figure, concludes that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made “to provide the magnetic head assembly of AAPA [Appellant’s
Admitted Prior Art] with grooves in the erase head in one of the
pair of the second cores most closely adjoining the pair of
first cores of the
read/write head as taught by Mori.” Examiner’s Answer at page
5, lines 13-16. The Examiner provides the rationale to support
the conclusion and states:
[O]ne of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made would have been motivated to provide a
magnetic head assembly with grooves in the erase head in
one of the pair of second cores most closely adjoining the
pair of first cores of the read/write head so as to ‘reduce
the cost of machining and the cost of a product by
providing track regulating grooves by chemical etching only
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007