Appeal No. 95-5142
Application 08/078,917
challenge. See In re Spormann, 53 CCPA 1375, 363 F.2d
444, 150 USPQ 449 (1966).
In the absence of reference support for the examiner's
assertion that is was known to use an exchange layer for
capping the soft active layer and keeping the soft layer in
saturation, the examiner has failed to prima facie establish
that this knowledge would have motivated one skilled in the
art to add an exchange layer adjacent to the to soft adjacent
layer in the prior art device shown in Appellant's Figure 1.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness over Appellant's prior art
Figure 1 in view of Hempstead is reversed, as is the rejection
of dependent claims 2-7, which stand or fall (in this case
stand) therewith.
REVERSED
)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007