Appeal No. 2000-1241
Application No. 08/424,156
(See brief at pages 11-13.) We agree with appellants that there must be some
motivation either expressly stated in the art or a convincing line of reasoning
established by the examiner for the combination. Here, the examiner has relied upon a
convincing line of reasoning as set forth in the statement of the rejection.
Appellants argue that Kondo specifically states that the tape described therein
has a residual magnetic flux density of 3200 G and in light of this specific teaching, it
would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to increase the residual magnetic flux density to 4150 G. (See brief at page
13.) We disagree with appellants. We disagree with appellants that this teaching of
3200 G in Kondo would have suggested to skilled artisans at the time of the invention
that the residual magnetic flux could not be any other value such as that taught and
suggested by Kubota. The value appears to only an example for a short wavelength
signal. Therefore, appellants have not adequately rebutted the examiner's case of
obviousness, and we will sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11. Since
claims 2, 10 and 12-14 stand or fall with claims 1 and 11, we will sustain the rejection of
dependent claims 2, 10 and 12-14.
With respect to claim 7, the examiner relies upon the teachings of Kamada to
teach an average surface roughness of not more than 0.005 µm while claim 7 recites
an average surface roughness of approximately 0.0015 µm. (See answer at page 5.)
While we agree with the examiner that Kamada teaches a range of values, we find no
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007