Appeal No. 2006-2808
Application 09/896,162
The examiner has indicated how the claimed invention is deemed to be fully met by
the disclosure of Gill [answer, pages 3-4]. With respect to independent claim 5, appellant
argues that Gill teaches a read head that has two spin valve sensors, each of which has
one magnetically fixed (pinned) layer and two free layers. Appellant argues that this
teaching is different from the claimed invention which recites a single spin valve sensor
that includes two magnetically fixed layers. Appellant argues that the examiner has
improperly interpreted the claimed “spin valve sensor” to be plural even though the
phrase is clearly singular. Thus, appellant argues that the claimed invention recites a
configuration that operates as a single spin valve sensor with reduced magnetic
sensitivity, while Gill describes two spin valve sensors operating independently [brief,
pages 8-10]. The examiner responds that the claim does not recite what the spin valve
sensor has a reduced sensitivity with respect to. The examiner also notes that no
functionality with respect to the various claimed layers is recited in claim 5. The
examiner also points out that a (dual) spin valve sensor is made up of two spin valve
sensors [answer, pages 4-5]. Appellant responds that neither of the spin valve sensors of
Gill has a reduced sensitivity. Appellant also asserts that sensors of Gill have increased
sensitivity rather than reduced sensitivity. Appellant reiterates that Gill fails to show the
claim elements in a single spin valve sensor and also fails to show a spin valve sensor
with reduced sensitivity [reply brief, pages 2-4].
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007