Appeal No. 2006-2808
Application 09/896,162
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claim 5 as being anticipated
by Gill. We agree with the examiner that a reasonable interpretation of the invention of
claim 5 reads on the disclosure of Gill. Appellant’s argument that the invention of claim
5 is distinguishable from Gill because Gill teaches two independent spin valve sensors is
not persuasive. First, a single spin valve sensor is only recited in the preamble of claim 5.
The body of claim 5 reads on Gill as demonstrated by the examiner. Second, since the
two spin valve sensors of Gill work together to achieve an enhanced signal output and
common mode noise rejection, we find that the two spin valve sensors of Gill together
form a single spin valve sensor for purposes of forming the magnetic head. Note that the
title of the invention in Gill is a “Differential Spin Valve Sensor Structure.” This title
suggests that the differential connection in Gill is used to form a single spin valve sensor.
We are also not persuaded by appellant’s argument that Gill fails to reduce sensitivity in
a spin valve sensor. Claim 5 does not recite what the sensitivity is reduced with respect
to. Gill discloses that the differential structure reduces noise so as to increase the signal-
to-noise ratio [column 5, lines 58-60]. Since the differential connection in Gill increases
signal-to-noise ratio, the spin valve sensor has reduced sensitivity to noise, and is
therefore, a reduced sensitivity spin valve sensor. Therefore, appellant’s arguments with
respect to claim 5 are not persuasive. Since appellant relies on the arguments considered
above with respect to claims 6, 7, 9, 15-17, and 19, we also sustain the examiner’s
rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed above.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007