Appeal No. 2004-1144
Application No. 09/584,765
46 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Lambeth for the
reasons set forth above and in the answer.
In his corresponding rejection of the remaining independent
claims 18 and 48, the examiner states that:
Lambeth et al. teach that materials possessing either
an A2 or B2 crystal lattice structure[] are known body
centered cubic or body centered cubic derivative
structures and materials possessing either an A2 or B2
crystal lattice structure are functionally equivalent
in terms of their use as seed/underlayers for magnetic
recording media [answer, pages 7-8].
and concludes that:
[i]t would therefore have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
appellant’s invention to modify the device of Suzuki
. . . to use a NiAlM-alloy seed layer possessing an A2
crystal lattice structure, since both an A2 crystal
lattice structure and a B2 crystal lattice structure
are known functional equivalents in terms of
seed/underlayers possessing lattice constants suitable
for Co-alloy magnetic films [answer, page 8].
We cannot agree with this obviousness conclusion.
As an initial matter, we emphasize that components which are
functionally or mechanically equivalent are not necessarily
obvious in view of one another. See In re Scott, 323 F.2d 1016,
1019, 139 USPQ 297, 299 (CCPA 1963). Also see In re Flint, 330
F.2d 363, 367-68, 141 USPQ 299, 302 (CCPA 1964). In this
instance, we are persuaded that Lambeth’s indication of
equivalency between A2 and B2 structures would not have suggested
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007