Appeal No. 95-1626
Application 07/804,013
recited element in claim 4 in addition to the ferromagnetic
and nonferromagnetic layers, we are unable to see how the
structure of claim 4 patentably distinguishes over the Shinjo
multilayer element. Appellants have not pointed to any
specific structure recited in claim 4 which patentably
distinguishes claim 4 from the MR element of Shinjo.
Therefore, we sustain the prior art rejection of independent
claim 4. Since claims 29, 30 and 33 are grouped with claim 4,
we also sustain the prior art rejection of these claims.
With respect to dependent claims 26 and 27, appellants
argue that the examiner has not addressed the claimed
different ferromagnetic layers. However, Shinjo clearly
teaches that his MR element is made from mixed ferromagnetic
layers of a nickel alloy and cobalt. These layers are known
to have different coercive forces and different anisotropic
magnetic fields. Therefore, we sustain the prior art
rejection of claims 26 and 27. With respect to dependent
claims 31 and 32, these claims recite the same ferromagnetic
layers as claims 26 and 27 but add a recitation of the angle
between the easy axis directions and the ferromagnetic layers.
The angle recitation of these claims does not add a structural
15
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007