Appeal No. 95-1626
Application 07/804,013
G) The examiner asserts that the nonferromagnetic
layers of claim 3 are unclear and indefinite. We agree with
appellants’ response that it is clear that a current flows in
the metal layer which induces a bias field which is applied to
the multilayer film. We find nothing indefinite in this
recitation.
H) The examiner questions whether the permanent magnet
layer of claim 1 is the same as the ferromagnetic layer. The
ferromagnetic layers are described as forming part of the
multilayer film. The permanent magnet is recited as being
formed on a nonferromagnetic layer which is formed “on the
multilayer film.” Thus, it is clear that the permanent magnet
is different from any of the ferromagnetic layers which
comprise the multilayer film in claim 1.
In summary, we have found no merit in any of the
examiner’s findings of lack of clarity and indefiniteness.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of all the claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
2. The rejection of claims 1-3 and 6-
45 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 [answer,
pages 6-7].
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007