Appeal No. 2002-1397
Application No. 09/310,800
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 16) and the Examiner’s Answer
(Paper No. 21) for a statement of the examiner’s position and to the Brief (Paper No.
20) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 19-29
According to the rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-10, and 19-29, Tsutaki shows (Figs.
3A-3F) a multiple recording/reproducing head block structure that, prior to being cut into
single-element heads, anticipates the claimed invention. (Final Rejection at 3.)
Appellant responds (Brief at 3-4) that the reference does not teach a multi-recording
element head assembly that is operable for either reading or writing to a medium, as
claimed. In appellant’s view, the intermediate structure shown in Figures 3A through 3F
of Tsutaki is not so operable.
The examiner responds (Answer at 3-4) that all the independent claims use the
term “operable,” but as a statement of intended use. The examiner acknowledges that
the relevant structures in Tsutaki are ultimately divided into single-element heads, as
indicated in Figure 4G. However, the examiner finds that the structure shown in Figure
3E of Tsutaki is operable to record/reproduce multiple tracks, disagreeing with
appellant’s argument that adjoining structures would short one another out.
Instant, representative claim 21 recites a “plurality of recording elements
operable for at least one of reading from and writing to....” The language, in isolation,
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007