Appeal No. 2003-1801
Application 09/559,347
We also cannot sustain the examiner’s obviousness-type
double patenting rejection. According to the examiner, it would
have been obvious to replace the amorphous NiP sealing layer of
Chen’s claimed magnetic recording medium with an amorphous NiNb
layer of the type taught by Ross “since one of ordinary skill in
the art would recognize that NiP and NiNb are known equivalents
and the substitution of known equivalents is within the knowledge
of one of ordinary skill in the art” (Answer, page 6). However,
Ross contains no teaching or suggestion that NiP and NiNb are
“known equivalents” (id.) for the purpose of performing a sealing
function and in particular with respect to substantially pre-
venting the migration of lithium from the substrate.2 For this
reason, the examiner’s obviousness conclusion lacks evidentiary
support.
2 At most, Ross would have suggested replacing NiP with NiNb
for the purpose of providing patentee’s texturizing function. As
previously indicated, this texturizing function is unrelated to
the lithium-migrating prevention function performed by Chen’s
sealing layer and by the here-claimed sealing layer.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007