Appeal No. 1999-2839
Application 08/824,716
30 by use of a second insulating layer between the magnetic
layers of the junction.
Moreover, Appellants state that the claims require that the
surface area of the contact area of the second metal magnetic
layer and the first insulating layer be no greater that 1x10 m .-9 2
Brief at page 5. However, Appellants conclude that Gallagher
contemplates contact areas that are much larger than that
required by the claims and therefore Gallagher does not fairly
disclose or suggest a structure with the claimed small contact
area of 1x10 m . Brief at page 5.-9 2
In response, the Examiner states that Gallagher has exactly
what Appellants claim i.e., a tunnel junction device having two
magnetic layers with an intervening tunnel insulator and the
functional part of the Appellants’ claimed device has only one
[insulating] layer between two magnetic layers. Examiner’s
Answer at page 4. The Examiner summarizes that the distinction
claimed by Appellants is that “there is a path between the two
magnetic layers that can be seen to go through both [insulating]
layers.” Examiner states that a review of Gallagher’s Figures
4A and 4B, shown below, shows that a path exists between the
lower magnetic layer 10 and the upper magnetic layer 30 that
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007