Appeal No. 2000-1241
Application No. 08/424,156
As discussed above concerning the breadth of the claim limitations with respect
to 35 U.S.C. § 112, we find that the claim limitations are quite broad and use
nonspecific relative terms, such as, "with a relatively high areal recording density." This
non-specific language lends itself to a broad interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We consider all of appellants' arguments in turn. However, arguments
appellants might have presented, but chose not to rely upon, are deemed waived. See
37 CFR § 1.192(a) ("Any arguments or authorities not included in the brief will be
refused consideration by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, unless good
cause is shown.)
The examiner maintains that Kondo teaches all of the claimed features but for
the residual magnetic flux density of "approximately 4150 G." As evidence of the
known use of residual magnetic flux density of approximately 4150 G, the examiner
relies upon the teachings of Kubota which teaches at col. 1 a magnetic tape layer in the
range of 3000-5000 G, which includes the value of 4150. Additionally, the examiner
provides a motivation for the combination of the teaching to provide "superior
reproduced signal output over an entire frequency band and low noise." (See answer
at page 4.)
Appellants argue that it is improper for the examiner to combine the teachings of
Kondo and Kubota. (See brief at page 11.) Appellants further cite various authorities
concerning the use of hindsight and motivation to combine teachings in the prior art.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007