Appeal No. 1998-1632 Page 3
Application No. 08/536,045
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant’s specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Appellant states that his claimed invention is directed
to a new method of forming a thin film for a magneto-
resistance effect type magnetic head (claim 1) or to a method
of manufacturing a magneto-resistance effect magnetic head
(claims 4, 7, and 11). (Brief, page 6).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that Sato and Yamada are
directed to making a magneto-optical recording medium, not a
magneto-resistive film or magneto-resistive effect magnetic
head. (Brief, page 9). Appellant also argues that the
secondary references of Ueda and Yamada are also directed to
making a magneto-optical recording medium, and not a magneto-
resistive film or magneto-resistive effect magnetic head.
(Brief, page 10).
In his reply brief, appellant reiterates that the process
of Yamada and Sato is directed to making a magneto-optical
recording medium and not to a magneto-resistive film. (Reply
brief, pages 1-2). Appellant argues that a magneto-optical
recording medium is very different from a magneto-resistance
effect type magnetic head. Appellant states that the
preferred physical properties of each are very different.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007