Appeal No. 2006-2808
Application 09/896,162
With respect to claims 10 and 20, appellant argues that Gill provides an enhanced
response signal rather than a reduced response signal as claimed. Appellant also argues
that Gill does not teach or suggest that the magnetic flux is distributed across the at least
two free layers to reduce a magnetic flux fed to each layer [brief, pages 10-11]. The
examiner responds that the magnetic flux in Gill is distributed across the two free layers
which reduces the magnetic flux fed to each free layer [answer, page 6]. Appellant
responds that the portion of Gill cited by the examiner demonstrates that Gill does not
anticipate a single reduced sensitivity spin valve sensor having two fixed layers [reply
brief, pages 4-5].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and 20 as being anticipated by
Gill for essentially the reasons discussed above and for the reasons argued by the
examiner. We agree with the examiner that a magnetic flux in Gill is distributed across
the free layers as recited in claims 10 and 20.
With respect to independent claim 21, appellant again argues that Gill does not teach
a single spin valve sensor that includes two magnetically fixed layers as claimed.
Appellant also again argues that the differential in Gill produces an enhanced response
signal rather than a reduced response signal as claimed. Finally, appellant reiterates that
Gill does not teach or suggest that the magnetic flux is distributed across the at least two
free layers to reduce a magnetic flux fed to each layer as claimed [brief, pages 11-12].
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007