Appeal No. 95-1626
Application 07/804,013
bias field to the MR element using a structure of the type
disclosed or an equivalent thereof. Once again, the
examiner’s conclusion that the Shinjo element inherently has
the properties recited in the claim is pure speculation and is
not supported by the record in this case. Thus, we do not
sustain the prior art rejection of independent claim 5. Since
claims 36-43 and 45 depend from claim 5, we also do not
sustain the prior art rejection of these claims.
With respect to independent claim 14, the examiner
asserts that the Shinjo MR element must operate in the same
manner as the claimed invention. Claim 14 recites that there
are two MR elements forming an MR device which has specific
claimed properties. Shinjo only discusses a single MR
element. The examiner has not addressed the obviousness of an
MR device having two MR elements as recited in claim 14.
Thus, the examiner has again failed to establish a prima facie
case of the obviousness of claim 14. Therefore, we do not
sustain the prior art rejection of independent claim 14.
Since claims 24, 34 and 44 depend from claim 14, we also do
not sustain the rejection of these claims.
18
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007