Appeal No. 2004-1144
Application No. 09/584,765
modifying Suzuki’s underlayer alloy so as to possess the here
claimed A2 structure rather than a B2 structure.
This is because the applied references do not support the
examiner’s implicit supposition that an artisan would have
reasonably expected Lambeth’s indication of equivalency for his
recording medium environment as applicable to the recording
medium environment of Suzuki. In this regard, we observe that
the environment of Lambeth involves highly oriented layers having
particular structures (e.g., hexagonal close packed, face
centered cubic as well as body centered cubic structures) in
order to achieve patentee’s desiderata (e.g., see the Abstract,
lines 38-68 in column 12, lines 1-40 in column 13, the paragraph
bridging columns 26 and 27 as well as lines 8-25 in column 27).
These aspects of Lambeth’s recording medium do not appear to have
reasonably specific relevancy to the recording medium of Suzuki.
Thus, the fact that an A2 as well as a B2 structure may be
acceptable for use by Lambeth would not have suggested
acceptability for use in Suzuki’s recording medium. This
viewpoint is reinforced by the fact that the AlNi underlayer,
which Suzuki seeks to improve by adding various elements thereto,
is explicitly disclosed by patentee as having a B2 structure
(e.g., see lines 6-28 in column 2). In the context of Suzuki’s
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007