Appeal No. 2002-0508
Application No. 09/225,116
These descriptions are the only characteristics of the “pinning
layer” disclosed in the specification. Under these
circumstances, we must interpret the term “pinning layer” to
mean those layers that change the shape of the microcavity or
void, adheres well to the microcavity layer, and is fairly rigid
such that it does not expand or shrink during the anneal
relative to the microcavity layer.
The examiner argues that Jeng’s element 126 is a “pinning
layer” and element 118 is a “microcavity layer.” (Answer, page
4.) The examiner, however, has not identified any evidence
establishing that Jeng’s element 126 is a “pinning layer” as
required by the appealed claims. Specifically, the examiner has
not established that Jeng’s element 126 is capable of changing
the shape of the microcavity, adheres well to the microcavity
layer, and is fairly rigid such that it does not expand or
shrink during the anneal relative to the microcavity layer.
Because the examiner has not established that Jeng
describes each and every limitation of the invention recited in
the appealed claims, we cannot affirm.
III. Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 13, 14, and 16-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Yoshimori
With respect to claims 1, 2, and 4 through 7, the examiner
argues that Yoshimori’s elements 95 or 195 constitutes a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007