Appeal No. 1999-2276
Application 08/785,802
in the I-shaped core between two magnetic cores.’ See the
Abstract of Mori.
Examiner’s Answer at page 5, line 17, to page 6, line 2.
We find that the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness. The plain language of Appellant’s
claim 1 requires the limitation of “said second grooves of said
erase head being formed in one of said pair of second cores
which most closely adjoins said pair of first cores of said
write/read head.” (emphasis added). Neither Appellant’s APA
nor Mori teaches or suggests this structural limitation.
Furthermore, considering either prior art reference singularly
or in combination, we do not find that this limitation would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time Appellant’s invention was made.
Because the APA and Mori lack this essential structural
limitation, they necessarily lack the other related limitations
which follow from its premise. Specifically, neither the APA
nor Mori teaches or suggests that “the first predetermined
write/read track width is less that said write/read track width
by a defined distance”; neither prior art teaches or suggests
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007