Appeal No. 1999-2705
Application 08/686,756
each recording head . . ." clause. Lehureau does not disclose
or suggest compensating for the varying magnetic properties of
the individual recording heads in a matrix recording head,
such as typically occur in mass production. Thus, it is no
surprise that Lehureau does not suggest the general solution
of applying an individual magnetizing current for each
individual recording head. Nor do we find this to be admitted
prior art. Appellants note that the prior art solution to
maintaining a precise operating point was to use arrangements
of recording heads with largely identical magnetic properties
(specification, p. 3).
The Examiner's position is as follows (FR3-4):
Christner et al teaches, in the art of magnetic
storage media, storing a current value determined in
preliminary tests in a non-volatile memory separate from
the medium and on selection of the recording heads and
[sic] supplying the stored current values. See the
abstract.
Masaki et al teaches in the art of dynamic storage,
permanently storing control values determined in
preliminary tests in a non-volatile memory separate from
the medium. See col. 13 lines 11-18, col. 14 lines 7-28
and col. 16 line 54 - col. 17 line 2.
Although, Christner et al and Masaki et al are
related to disk storage mediums, it is well known in the
art that disk recording techniques are also applicable to
tape recording techniques. Furthermore, Lehureau et al
implies that the recording systems would have been
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007