Appeal No. 1998-0200
Application No. 08/698,193
Appellants do not provide separate arguments for patentability of any claim. We therefore
select Claim 12 as representative of the subject matter on appeal, and decide disposition accordingly.
See 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7).
Jeffers discloses, with regard to Figure 2 and column 2, lines 43 through 62, a thin film magnetic
head structure which includes an intermediate layer of magnetically conductive material between a
magneto-resistive layer 140 and a permeable layer 180. The magnetically conductive material, which is
also electrically insulating, replaces a prior art electrically insulating SiO layer. Jeffers teaches replacing
2
the SiO layer of the prior art because it acts as a “flux barrier” between the magneto-resistive element
2
and the flux conducting limb. See Jeffers, column 1, lines 52 through 57. Although the reference does
not disclose a numeric value for the relative magnetic permeability of the layer of magnetically
conductive material, nor give examples of acceptable ranges thereof, according to the examiner the
claimed ranges of relative magnetic permeability “would have been an obvious result of routine
optimization.” (Final Rejection, page 3.)
Appellants respond that Jeffers discloses that the intermediate layer has a “relatively high
magnetic permeability,” and would not have suggested anything to lead an artisan to the “relatively low
magnetically permeable layer” as set forth in Claim 12. (See Brief, pages 7 and 8.)
The examiner responds in turn, on pages 4 and 5 of the Answer, that the disclosure of Jeffers as
a whole would have suggested more than the “relatively high” permeability of the preferred
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007