Appeal No. 2002-1417
Application No. 09/306,484
suggestion of adding the layer to the Fontana device, for the purpose of “better
exchange coupling.”
According to appellants, however, the references do not disclose or suggest that
better exchange coupling may be achieved between an Mn-alloy layer and a CoFe
layer, and thus fail to suggest the combination contemplated by the rejection. Gill is
deemed to teach the use of a NiFe buffer layer to enhance exchange coupling between
a NiO antiferromagnetic layer and a synthetic antiferromagnetic (SAF). (Brief at 6-7.)
The examiner, in response, advances several arguments with respect to why the
combination would have been suggested; i.e., that Gill’s teachings are not limited to the
particular materials disclosed. (Answer at 7-8.) Appellants argue to the contrary. (Brief
at 7.)
Gill discloses, at column 12, lines 58 through 65, that a layer 280 (Fig. 22) of
NiFe is provided for better exchange coupling between a NiO AFM layer 222 and a Co
film.
Neither the examiner nor appellants provide evidence in support of the
respective position (e.g., a teaching from the prior art that shows inferences the artisan
would have drawn from the relevant portion of the Gill disclosure). Disposition of the
instant appeal follows from the allocation of burdens in ex parte prosecution.
The allocation of burdens requires that the USPTO produce the factual basis for
its rejection of an application under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (citing In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007