Appeal No. 2004-1144
Application No. 09/584,765
41. The magnetic recording medium of claim 33, wherein the
intermetallic alloy has the form CoTiXY, Co + X is between 35 to
65 atomic percent, Ti + Y is between 65 to 35 atomic percent, X
is an element selected from the group consisting of Co, Fe, Cu,
Mn, V, and Zn, and Y is an element selected from the group
consisting of Nb, Ta, Hf, Zr, Zn, Ag, Au, Pt, and Pd.
44. The magnetic recording medium of claim 33, wherein the
intermetallic alloy contains Ni and Al within 10 atomic percent
of one another.
47. The magnetic recording medium of claim 33, wherein the
intermetallic alloy does not contain Al.
The references set forth below are relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of obviousness:
Suzuki et al. (Suzuki) 6,174,598 Jan. 16, 2001
(filed May 11, 1998)
Shin et al. (Shin) 6,228,515 May 8, 2001
(filed Oct. 20, 1998)
Lambeth et al. (Lambeth) 6,248,416 Jun. 19, 2001
(filed Nov. 10, 1997)
The issues before us on this appeal are raised by the
following rejections.1
Claims 41, 44 and 47 are rejected under the second paragraph
of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for failing to particularly point out and
1
1 As correctly indicated on page 3 of the answer, the
examiner’s objections to certain claims involve petitionable
rather than appealable subject matter. See, for example, the
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 706.01(rev. 1, Feb.
2003). Accordingly, we will not consider or further comment upon
the appellant’s arguments (e.g., see pages 7 and 8 of the brief)
concerning these claim objections.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007