Appeal No. 95-1626
Application 07/804,013
C) The examiner argues that the direction in claim 2
is unclear and indefinite. We do not agree. Claim 2 simply
recites that the bias field which is applied by the permanent
magnet should be smaller than the field strength of the MR
element at maximum resistance, and that the direction of the
bias field is inverse to the direction of magnetization of the
permanent magnet. These directions being inverse are clear as
shown by the sketch attached to the reply brief. The
permanent magnet causes a magnetic field to exist in the
layers which is in the reverse direction of the magnetic field
within the magnet itself.
D) The examiner asserts that it is unclear how a
nonferromagnetic layer can be magnetoresistive as recited in
claim 14. As appellants point out, however, claim 14 does not
make this recitation. Claim 14 recites two different MR
elements each of which is layered with ferromagnetic and
nonferromagnetic layers. Thus, it is each of the MR elements
which are magnetoresistive, not a nonferromagnetic layer by
itself. E) The examiner asserts that the
source of the voltage and output of claims 14, 24, 34 and 44
is unclear because there is no structure recited to generate
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007