Appeal No. 1997-0252
Application 08/200,820
Thus, Clabes clearly contemplates that the magnetization direction of the probe should be
parallel to its long axis which would also be parallel to the surface magnetization when the
probe is scanned along the surface of a sample. If this magnetization is established using
a hard-magnetic material as suggested in Clabes’ abstract, then the magnetization
direction of the probe will remain constant and parallel to the magnetization direction of the
sample as claimed. The fact that the Clabes probe can map the flux distribution of a
surface [column 9, lines 61-63] also suggests that the magnetization direction of the probe
is parallel to the magnetization of the sample.
In summary, even though Clabes is directed to the generic field of atomic force
microscopes, Clabes also suggests using such a device as a magnetic force microscope
and coating the distal end of the needle structure with a hard-magnetic material. These
teachings and suggestions render the invention of claims 7 and 22 obvious within the
meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we sustain the rejection as it applies to claims 7-9
and 22.
The remaining claims on appeal stand or fall with claim 10 or claim 13 [brief, page 9].
Claim 10 recites that the hard-magnetic material comprises an alloy of iron and cobalt
whereas claim 13 recites that the hard-magnetic material comprises an alloy of cobalt and
nickel. The examiner’s rejection is based on the position that the use of a particular alloy
would be an obvious matter of engineering design selection [answer, page 3]. Appellants
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007