Appeal 2006-3363
Application 10/873,363
from the embodiment which uses a dielectric for the first layer. Accordingly,
Appellants conclude that the conductive bit stop is not on the sides of the GMR
element. Brief p. 5. Appellants’ argument is not persuasive since we find that the
conductive bit stop layer is patterned. This patterning is necessary since, if not
done, the etch stop layer would prevent vias 47 from being etched through both
layers 45 and 32. However, we do not find that, because the conductive bit stop
layer is patterned, one of skill in the art would conclude that the conductive bit stop
layer is not on the sides of the GMR element.
For the forgoing reasons, the Appellants have not convinced us that the
Examiner’s finding that Tehrani teaches “a magneto-resistive bit having a top
surface and side walls; a conductive etch stop barrier layer encapsulating the top
surface and side walls of said bit” is unsupported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 6.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED
tdl/ce
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE CA 92614
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: September 9, 2013