Appeal No. 2006-2982 Page 18
Application No. 10/458,112
With respect to whether Sun discloses superparamagnetic particles on
“at least one surface thereof,” the examiner argues that Sun teaches the
nanoparticle is electrically connected to the first and second electrodes by
tunneling (Sun, col. 5, lines 4-13) [answer, page 12].
In the reply brief, appellants note that Sun’s electrodes 101 and 102
are provided with a magnetic nanoparticle 103 situated between the
electrodes (col. 4, lines 35-37; see also fig. 1) [reply brief, page 6].
Appellants argue that Sun does not disclose nor suggest that the particle is
on the surface thereof [id.]. Appellants argue that if the particle is too close
to the electrode and couples too strongly to it, the device disclosed by Sun
will not operate properly because the particle must switch magnetically for it
to work [id.]. Appellants conclude that Sun’s particle must lie between the
electrodes at a safe distance from the electrodes for the device to function
correctly [id.].
When we consider the section of Sun relied on by the examiner for
this teaching, we find no specific disclosure of superparamagnetic particles
on “at least one surface thereof,” as claimed. Sun discloses that a rotation
of the magnetic orientation of the magnetic nanoparticle 103 results in a
change in the device’s resistance [col. 5, lines 14-19]. Sun further explains
the relationship between the orientation of the magnetic moment of
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007