Appeal No. 1998-1632 Page 4
Application No. 08/536,045
(Reply brief, page 3). Appellant explains that the magneto-
optical recording media in each of Yamada, Sato, Ueda and
Shirata all include a high coercive force. (Reply brief, page
3). On the contrary, appellant argues that in producing a
magneto-resistance effect thin film, the goal is to provide a
low coercive force of less than 1.0 Oe. (Reply brief, page
3).
The examiner recognizes that the combination of Sato or
Yamada in view of Ueda or Shirahata concerns magneto-optical
recording media and not a magneto-resistance effect thin film
or a magneto-resistance effect type magnetic head. (Answer,
page 5).
The examiner relies upon the references of Chaug and
Fontana for teaching that it is known in the art to use NiFe
material in making magneto-resistance films. (Answer, page 5,
office action of Paper No. 14, pages 2-3). The examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to employ the method
of the primary references in manufacturing a magneto-resistant
film or head in view of the teachings of Chaug or Fontana,
which disclose “the same basic structure and the same magnetic
material NiFe”. (Answer, page 5). The examiner reiterates
this point in his rebuttal, and states, “it has been
established . . . that the same or similar device having the
magnetic layer composed of NiFe can be used in the manufacture
of a magnetic head”. Based upon this, the examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to have used the same process
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007