Ex Parte Heinonen et al - Page 4

                Appeal  2007-3202                                                                            
                Application 10/145,987                                                                       
                      3. The Applicants state in the Appeal Brief (Br. 5:4) that claims                      
                1-5, 7-16, and 31-40 stand and fall together.                                                
                      4.  Hines discloses a magnetoresistance sensor having a                                
                “van der Pauw” disk geometry and an embedded concentric metallic                             
                inhomogeneity.  (Hines col. 2:55-58; col. 4: 16-18, 38-40; Fig. 1A).                         
                      5. Hines states (col. 3:33-37):  “A principal object of the                            
                present invention is the provision of a magnetoresistance sensor                             
                comprising a semiconductor material containing a conductive                                  
                inhomogeneity where the dimensions of the inhomogeneity are                                  
                selected to optimize the magnetoresistance of the sensor.”                                   
                      6. With regard to claim 1, the Examiner determined that Hines                          
                discloses every feature of the claimed invention except “conductive shields                  
                disposed on opposite sides of the semiconductor mass.”  (Answer 3:17-25).                    
                      7 The Applicants do not disagree with the Examiner that Hines                          
                does not disclose “conductive shields disposed on opposite sides of the                      
                semiconductor mass.”                                                                         
                      8. With regard to claim 1, the Applicants challenge the                                
                Examiner’s finding that Hines discloses “a bias element in proximity to the                  
                semiconductor mass, the bias element producing a biasing magnetic field                      
                within the semiconductor mass.”                                                              
                      9. In column 7, lines 16-22, Hines states:                                             
                      It should also be straightforward to provide the 0.2T self-                            
                      biasing as described in an article by S. A. Solin et al. entitled                      
                      “A Self-Biasing Non-Magnetic GMR Sensor:  Mercury                                      
                      Cadmium Telluride in Appl. Phys. Lettrs, vol 69 pages 4105-                            
                      4107 (1996) or external biasing necessary to obtain a linear                           
                      response close to H=0.                                                                 


                                                     4                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013