Appeal No. 2001-2402
Application No. 08/422,849
and read transducers are disclosed by Crouse, as shown in Figures
1 and 2a, to be equal (answer, pages 8 & 9). In particular, the
Examiner asserts that because of the channel spacing and the
existence of gap 7 between the magnetic sensors, “the cross-track
spacing between the write head and the read head will be
different in the channel cross-track spacing arrangement and the
spacing cross the track” (answer, page 9).
A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that
the four corners of a single prior art document describe every
element of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently,
such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could practice
the invention without undue experimentation. See Atlas Powder
Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947
(Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79, 31 USPQ2d
1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
After a review of Crouse, we agree with Appellant’s
assertion that Crouse uses different transducers for writing data
tracks and servo tracks whereas claims 1 and 16 clearly require
that the same write transducers be used for writing data tracks
and servo tracks. In that regard, Crouse merely provides for
“servo writer” transducers that are dedicated to writing only the
servo tracks (col. 10, lines 32-62). We find the Examiner’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007