Appeal No. 2002-1212
Application No. 09/349,745
seed layer being made of NiCr as shown by Kim et al ‘235 because the MR cofficient and
thermal stability of the MR sensor would have been significantly improved; see column 4,
lines 53-59 or Kim et al ‘235.” (Answer, p. 7).
We, like the Appellant (Brief, p. 7), have reviewed the cited portion of the Kim
reference and do not find support for the rationale advance by the Examiner. The
Examiner has failed to address the Appellant’s concerns raised in the Brief. Thus, we
conclude that the Examiner’s rejection is based on speculation. Speculation is not a
sufficient basis for a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011,
1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967); In re Sporck, 301 F.2d 686, 690, 133 USPQ
360, 364 (CCPA 1962). The rejection is reversed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007