Ex Parte Liu et al - Page 8

            Appeal 2006-3363                                                                                 
            Application 10/873,363                                                                           

            the GMR element.  Facts 13 and 14.  In this embodiment, the etching must be                      
            within the edges to prevent the GMR element from being damaged by the etching                    
            step.  Fact 15.                                                                                  
                   From these facts, we do not find that evidence contradicts the Examiner’s                 
            finding that the conductive etch stop layer, of layer 45, covers and provides                    
            protection of the top and sides of the GMR element.  Tehrani does not explicitly                 
            state that this also applies to the embodiment where vias 47 and 50 are etched                   
            simultaneously and a conductive etch stop is used.  As Appellants assert, keeping                
            the vias 50 within the edge of the GMR element could suggest that the conductive                 
            etch stop is not on the side of the GMR element.  However, we note, in this                      
            embodiment, for the etching step to create vias 47, the etching step must be able to             
            etch both layers 45 and dielectric system 32.  As discussed above, the layer 32 also             
            provides protection to the GMR element.  One skilled in the art would recognize                  
            that the teaching of keeping vias 50 within the edges of the GMR element, also                   
            prevents the etching step from etching the dielectric system 32 which is protecting              
            the underside of GMR element (i.e. even with the etch stop on the side of the GMR                
            material, if the etching process compromised dielectric system 32 the GMR would                  
            be exposed from below).  Thus, we find evidence of record to support the                         
            Examiner’s conclusion which is contrary to that asserted by Appellants.  As the                  
            substantial evidence standard does not preclude a finding when inconsistent                      
            conclusions can be drawn from the evidence, we find that there is substantial                    
            evidence to support the Examiner’s findings.                                                     
                   Appellants also argue that the conductive bit stop layer of the second                    
            embodiment does not cover the same area as the dielectric layer of the first                     
            embodiment because, if so, it would short out the circuit.  Thus, Appellants assert              
            that the embodiment which uses a conductive bit stop for the first layer differs                 

                                                     8                                                       


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013