Appeal No. 2004-2166
Application No. 09/492,557
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art, at the time of the invention[,] to
modify the structure of Chen to form the U-shape of
Hurst, for the reasons indicated in Hurst, at least at
col. 7, lines 6-15, to more effectively concentrate the
magnetic field above the word line than could be
obtained by a keeper structure not formed in a U shape
and encasing the word line.
Chen, however, teaches that “[p]inning material 30 is positioned
adjacent only to the ends, so as not to effect [sic] the magnetic
material in the major domain or domains between the ends”
(col. 4, lines 52-55). The examiner has not established that,
regardless of this teaching, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been led by the applied prior art to place Chin’s
pinning material between the ends.
For the above reasons we conclude that the examiner has not
carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness of the appellant’s claimed invention.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 34-36, 38, 40 and 41 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Chen considered with Aharoni, claims 34,
37 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Hurst, claims 34, 37
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007