Appeal 2007-3202
Application 10/145,987
The Applicants have provided no explanation as to why the Examiner’s
reliance on the cited portions of Hines are mistaken. The Applicants have
also provided no response to the Examiner’s finding that providing a bias
field is very well known in the art. (FF 11). Thus, the Applicants’ argument
that Hines does not disclose a bias element in proximity to the
semiconductor mass, which produces a biasing magnetic field within the
semiconductor mass, is unpersuasive.
It is not disputed that Mizoshita discloses magnetic shielding layers on
opposite sides of the magneto-resistive element in a magneto-resistive
recording and reproducing head. (FF 13). That is the only feature missing
from the disclosure of Hines, insofar as the limitations of claim 1 are
concerned. The Examiner determined that Mizoshita discloses including
magnetic shields on opposite sides of the semiconductor mass to reduce
magnetic flux leaking from the magneto-resistive element, which leakage
flux causes damage to information magnetically recorded on the recording
medium. (FF 14). The Applicants provide no reply to that determination.
(FF 15). Instead, the Applicants simply argue that there is no motivation to
combine Mizoshita’s teachings about opposingly disposed magnetic shields
with the magneto-resistive head of Hines. The argument is unpersuasive.
The Applicants essentially argue that there is no motivation to
combine the teachings because Mizoshita does not disclose the elements
disclosed by Hines, and Hines does not disclose the elements disclosed by
Mizoshita. (Br. 6:17-23). The argument is misplaced. The rejection is
based not on each of Hines or Mizoshita individually, but on their combined
teachings from the perspective of one with ordinary skill in the art. One
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013