Appeal 2007-2256
Application 10/903,064
Appellants contend that Lee and Shimizu are “non-analogous” in that
Lee’s teachings are for a longitudinal magnetic recording medium while the
teachings of Shimizu relate to a perpendicular magnetic recording medium,
which Shimizu teaches is incompatible with longitudinal recordings (Br. 7).
Appellants contend that Lee is directed to the same general type of
magnetic medium as Appellants, but, in contrast, the concept of Mrt being
higher in the circumferential direction makes no sense for the perpendicular
oriented media of Shimizu (Br. 8).
Appellants contend that Shimizu does not teach that CoTi is
equivalent to RuAl, just that both have a B2 crystallographic structure (Br.
8-9). Appellants further contend that the layer under the RuAl or CoTi of
Shimizu is not CrTi as required by Appellants’ claims, but a quite different
layer, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not look to perpendicular
recording media for compatible substitutions of material (Br. 9).
The Examiner contends that Lee and Shimizu are analogous art, both
directed to magnetic recording media (Answer 4). The Examiner further
contends that one of ordinary skill in this art would have a reason and an
expectation of success in substituting one B2 crystallographic material
(RuAl) for another (CoTi) as an underlayer in a magnetic recording medium
(Answer 4).
Accordingly, the issues presented from the record in this appeal are as
follows: (1) are Lee and Shimizu non-analogous art?; and (2) if not, has the
Examiner identified reasons that would have prompted a person of ordinary
skill in this art to substitute one B2 crystallographic structure material for
another?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013