Appeal No. 95-3335
Application 08/083,231
on arguments which could have been raised but were not set forth
in the brief.
We sustain the rejection of claims 1-6 and 25-26 as being
unpatentable over the IBM Disclosure.
The appellant has grouped all rejected claims 1-6 and 25-26
together for single treatment (Br. at 3). We discuss claim 1.
Initially, the appellant makes several arguments (Br. at 4):
(1) the claimed first contact serves as the source of primary
electrons whereas the magnetic thin film in the IBM Disclosure is
merely a source of secondary electrons; (2) in the appellant’s
invention it is the primary electrons which are recombined with
holes, not secondary electrons as in the case of the IBM
Disclosure; and (3) the magnetic thin film in the IBM Disclosure
does not have a net magnetic moment. The examiner correctly
rejected all three of these arguments.
It is true that in the invention described in the IBM
Disclosure, the primary source of electrons is the tunneling
electron microscope and the primary electrons create a cascade of
spin-polarized secondary electrons in the magnetic thin film
which in turn are recombined with holes in the semiconductor
substrate. See IBM Disclosure at page 469. The examiner
correctly points out that nothing in the appellant’s claims
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007