Ex Parte Ingvarsson et al - Page 3




                Appeal No. 2006-1439                                                                          
                Application No. 10/195,178                                                                    

                The claimed invention is directed to a method for treating a                                  
                magnetic material within a magnetic device.  In the Background of the                         
                Invention, Appellants state that the present invention relates to damping                     
                of magnetization changes in magnetic materials.  Particularly in high                         
                speed magnetic devices, which includes spin valves and magnetic                               
                tunnel junctions (MTJ).  (Specification, page 1).  The specification further                  
                discloses that it is desirable to adjust the magnetization damping in                         
                magnetic devices to reduce magnetic oscillations after switching                              
                magnetic direction.  (Specification, pages 1-2).  The discussion in the                       
                detail description portion of the specification specifies that magnetic                       
                test structures are utilized (specification, page 3) and the damping is                       
                measured in terms of the Gilbert damping parameter.  (Specification,                          
                page 4).  Thus, upon careful consideration of the specification as a                          
                whole, it appears that the phrase “increasing damping of a magnetic                           
                material within a magnetic device” is properly interpreted as a                               
                specifically increasing magnetization damping of a magnetic material                          
                within a magnetic device.3  Utilizing this interpretation of the claimed                      
                subject matter, we turn to the Examiner’s stated rejection.                                   
                                                                                                             
                3     This interpretation equally applies to independent claim 6, which specifies             
                                                     -3-                                                      





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007