Appeal No. 2002-1502
Application No. 09/388,885
first sublayer is able to be achieved while keeping the value of
the effective Hk, and therefore the magnetic stiffness of the
free layer unchanged. (See paragraph bridging pages 4-5 of
brief).
Appealed claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the admitted prior art of specification
Figure 3 in view of Dahlberg.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellant and the examiner. In so doing, we find
that examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner’s rejection for essentially those
reasons expressed in appellant’s brief.
The examiner appreciates that the admitted prior art
depicted in specification Figure 3 “does not show the details of
the free layer”, i.e., the composition and thickness of the
second sublayer (page 4 of answer, third paragraph). To rectify
this deficiency, the examiner relies upon Dahlberg for disclosing
a second sublayer (317) of high resistivity soft ferromagnetic
material having a thickness of 60-80 D.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007