Appeal No. 95-1626
Application 07/804,013
limitation which is not present in the Shinjo device.
Therefore, we also sustain the prior art rejection of claims
31 and 32.
With respect to dependent claim 28, appellants argue
that Shinjo fails to address the limitation of a permanent
magnet as recited in the claim. As we noted in our discussion
of claim 1 above, we agree that Shinjo does not suggest the
use of a permanent magnet, and the examiner has not addressed
the obviousness of modifying the Shinjo MR element to have a
permanent magnet. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection
of claim 28. With respect to dependent claim 35, appellants
argue that Shinjo does not suggest the claimed lattice
mismatch between the ferromagnetic and nonferromagnetic
layers. The examiner responds that the Shinjo MR element and
the claimed MR element would inherently have the same lattice
structure. We agree. Appellants’ disclosure makes it clear
that the amount of lattice mismatch to a known ferromagnetic
layer is a function of the composition of the nonferromagnetic
layer. That is, Table 3 of the specification notes that a
nonferromagnetic layer of Cu causes a lattice mismatch of
1.77%. Since Shinjo teaches that the nonferromagnetic layers
16
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007