Appeal No. 95-1626
Application 07/804,013
36-45, however, the prior art would have suggested the
obviousness of the invention as set forth in claims 4, 26, 27,
29-33 and 35. Accordingly, we affirm-in-part.
1. The rejection of claims 1-45 under
the first and second paragraphs of 35
U.S.C. § 112 [answer, pages 3-6].
The examiner has formulated this rejection in
paragraphs labeled A) to H), and appellants have responded to
the rejection in the same manner. Therefore, we will also
consider the positions of the examiner and appellants in
paragraphs labeled to be consistent with their use by the
parties.
A) The examiner argues that there is no structure to
provide the bias field of claims 1-5 or the current of claim
3. The examiner also questions how a bias field is applied to
the multilayer when the source is a layer of the film.
Appellants respond that the bias field of claim 1, for
example, is a permanent magnet mounted on the multilayer.
Appellants also indicate how the various bias fields and
currents arise in the multilayer device. We agree with
appellants for the reasons given by them. We see no lack of
clarity caused by the source of the bias field being either
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007