Appeal No. 97-1627 Page 6
Application No. 08/202,991
The first reason is that the “claims are inadequately
disclosed under 112
par.1 if read to encompass any number of layers, any L/W
ratio, and any total thickness.” (Final Rejection at 3.)
We find, however, that the examiner misconstrues the
claimed sensor as comprising any number of layers, any length-
to-width (L/W) ratio, and any total thickness. The Examiner
ignores many claim limitations. Among the ignored limitations
of independent claims 1 and 14 are a plurality of alternating
layers of a magnetic material and a nonmagnetic (NM),
conducting material; a three-dimensional microarchitecture
with L $ W > B and O.1Fm # W # 5Fm; each magnetic layer acting
as a single magnetic domain; the layers of NM material having
a thickness such that exchange coupling between adjacent
layers is less than magnetostatic coupling; and a means or
conductive layers for flowing a current through the sensor and
for detecting changes in resistance. (Spec. at 15, 17.)
Accordingly, we find that the examiner’s first reason for
rejecting the claims does not satisfy his burden of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007