Ex Parte Bian et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 8, 2018

13722632 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/722,632 12/20/2012 Bo Bian STL17130 9737
73462 7590 01/10/2018
Hall Estill Attorneys at Law
(Seagate Technology LLC)
100 North Broadway, Suite 2900
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8820
EXAMINER
CHAU, LINDA N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1785
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/10/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
danderson@hallestill.com
okcipdocketing @ hallestill. com
US PTO @ dockettrak. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BO BIAN, WEIKANG SHEN, PENGCHENG LI, MIAOGEN LU,
CONNIE CHUNLING LIU, and THOMAS NOLAN
Appeal 2017-005526
Application 13/722,632
Technology Center 1700
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 requests our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1, 2, 5—10, and 12—19. We have
jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC, which,
according to the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed
May 16, 2016 (“App. Br.”), 1.
Appeal 2017-005526
Application 13/722,632
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant claims a perpendicular data recording medium. Br. 2—\.
Claims 1 and 10 illustrate the subject matter on appeal and are reproduced
below:
1. A perpendicular data recording medium, comprising:
a multi-layer recording structure formed on a base substrate and
adapted to magnetically store a magnetic bit sequence in
domains substantially perpendicular to said layers;
a single-layer magnetic stabilization structure contactingly
disposed on the multilayer recording structure to
magnetically stabilize an upper portion of the multi-layer
recording structure, the single-layer magnetic
stabilization structure characterized as a single layer of
hard magnetic material having a non-zero boron (B)
content of less than about 6% and a platinum (Pt)
content of about 20—25%; and
a protective overcoat layer contactingly disposed on the single­
layer magnetic stabilization structure.
10. A perpendicular data recording medium, comprising:
a multi-layer recording structure adapted to magnetically store a
magnetic bit sequence in domains substantially
perpendicular to said layers;
a thin hard magnetic layer contactingly disposed on the multi­
layer recording structure to magnetically stabilize an
upper portion of the recording structure, the thin hard
magnetic layer formed of only a single layer of hard
magnetic material and having an overall thickness of
10% or less of an overall thickness of the multi-layer
recording structure, the single layer of hard magnetic
material further having a thickness of less than 1% of a
topmost recording layer of the recording structure; and
2
Appeal 2017-005526
Application 13/722,632
a protective overcoat layer contactingly disposed on the thin
hard magnetic layer.
App. Br. 16—18 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Final Office
Action entered December 1, 2015 (“Final Act.”), and maintains the
rejections in the Examiner’s Answer entered December 6, 2016 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 1, 2, 5—9, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kong et al. (US 2009/0197119 Al, published August 6,
2009) in view of Berger et al. (US 2009/0080110 Al, published March 26,
2009);
II. Claims 10 and 15—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Kong in view of Nishikawa et al. (US 2004/0209037 Al, published
October 21, 2004); and
III. Claims 12—14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kong in view of Nishikawa and Berger.
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellant’s contentions, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1,2, 5—9, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons set
forth in the Final Action, the Answer, and below, and reverse the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 10 and 12—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons
set forth in the Appeal Brief and below.
We review appealed rejections for reversible error based on the
arguments and evidence the Appellant provides for each issue the Appellant
identifies. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072,
3
Appeal 2017-005526
Application 13/722,632
1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the examiner had
failed to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to
require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s
rejections”)).
Rejection I
Claims 1, 2, 6—9, 18, and 19
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 6—9, 18, and 19 together on the basis of
claim 1, to which we limit our discussion. Br. 6—11; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Kong discloses a perpendicular magnetic recording medium 100
formed by sequentially stacking a soft magnetic layer 130, an underlayer
150, and a recording layer 160 (multi-layer recording structure) on a
substrate 110 (base substrate). Kong |34; Fig. 1. Kong discloses forming a
protective layer 170 (protective overcoat layer) over the recording layer 160.
Kong || 24, 26; Fig. 1. Kong discloses that the recording layer 160 has a
three-layer structure comprised of a first ferromagnetic layer 161, a second
ferromagnetic layer 163, and a capping layer 169 (single-layer magnetic
stabilization structure). Kong 161; Fig. 1. Kong discloses that the capping
layer 169 thermally stabilizes the first and second ferromagnetic layers 161,
163, and may be formed of a CoCrPtB alloy. Kong | 64.
The Examiner finds that Kong does not disclose the boron and
platinum content of the capping layer, and the Examiner relies on Berger for
suggesting this feature. Final Act. 3. Berger discloses a perpendicular
magnetic recording medium 200 comprising a multilayer cap structure 230
(magnetic stabilization structure) coupled to a granular layer 210 (recording
4
Appeal 2017-005526
Application 13/722,632
structure). Berger || 8, 33; Fig. 2. Berger discloses that the multilayer cap
structure 230 is formed of lower 232 and upper 236 magnetic layers
comprised of a CoCrPtB alloy that includes 0.1—30 atomic % platinum, and
0.1—20 atomic % boron. Berger || 33, 37; Fig. 2. The Examiner finds that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led at the time of
Appellant’s invention to modify the capping layer 169 formed of a CoCrPtB
alloy disclosed in Kong to include platinum and boron in the amounts
utilized in the magnetic layers 232, 236 of the multilayer cap structure 230
disclosed in Berger, because Berger discloses that “this is a known material”
for a CoCrPtB alloy magnetic capping structure. Final Act. 3.
Appellant argues that Berger “explicitly and exclusively teaches a
multi-layer capping structure contacting a single recording layer,” and fails
to disclose “a single layer magnetic layer having the claimed boron and
platinum content contacting a multi-layer recording structure.” Br. 6—7.
(citations omitted). Appellant further contends that the magnetic layers
disclosed in Berger having a platinum and boron content as recited in claim
1 are used only in combination with non-magnetic layers to allow adequate
exchange coupling. Br. 8. Appellant asserts that Berger therefore teaches
away from utilizing the recited platinum and boron content in a single
magnetic layer to stabilize a portion of a recording structure. Id.
However, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error
because they are improperly based on Berger alone, and do not take into
consideration what the combined disclosures of Kong and Berger would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
5
Appeal 2017-005526
Application 13/722,632
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)
(The test for obviousness “is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”)
As discussed above, Kong discloses a perpendicular magnetic
recording medium 100 that includes a recording layer 160 having first and
second ferromagnetic layers 161, 163, and a capping layer 169 that
thermally stabilizes the ferromagnetic layers 161, 163. Accordingly,
Kong—rather than Berger—discloses a single capping layer 169 that
contacts and thermally stabilizes a multilayer recording structure,
corresponding to a single-layer magnetic stabilization structure as recited in
claim 1.
Although Kong discloses that the capping layer 169 may be formed of
a CoCrPtB alloy, Kong does not disclose the composition of the alloy,
leaving it to one of ordinary skill in the art to identify a suitable CoCrPtB
alloy. Berger’s disclosure of the suitability of a CoCrPtB alloy that includes
0.1—30 atomic % platinum and 0.1—20 atomic % boron for forming a cap
structure contacting a granular layer 210 (recording structure) in a
perpendicular magnetic recording medium reasonably would have led one of
ordinary skill in the art to utilize such a CoCrPtB alloy to form Kong’s
single capping layer 169.
Although Berger discloses that the lower 232 and upper 236 magnetic
layers of the multilayer cap structure 230 are flanked by layers of non­
magnetic material 234, 238, the presence of the non-magnetic material
layers does not negate Berger’s disclosure of the suitability of a CoCrPtB
alloy including 0.1—30 atomic % platinum and 0.1—20 atomic % boron for
6
Appeal 2017-005526
Application 13/722,632
forming magnetic layers 232, 236 of a multi-layer cap structure 230. Berger
Tflf33, 37. Accordingly, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, Berger does not
teach away from utilizing a CoCrPtB alloy including 0.1—30 atomic %
platinum and 0.1—20 atomic % boron to form Kong’s a single layer capping
layer 169 (magnetic stabilization structure) because Berger does not criticize
or discredit use of such an alloy for forming a single capping layer that
contacts a multilayer recording structure, as disclosed in Kong. In re Fulton,
391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of
more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of
these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed”); In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551,
552-53 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Appellant further argues that Kong discloses that the capping layer
169 decreases the magnetization field of the first and second ferromagnetic
layers of Kong’s recording structure 160. Br. 7. Appellant contends that
Kong’s capping layer 169 therefore teaches away from the single-layer
magnetic stabilization structure recited in claim 1, which increases magnetic
saturation as explained in Appellant’s Specification, and magnetically
stabilizes an upper portion of the multi-layer recording structure as recited in
claim 1. Br. 7 (citing Spec. 10,11. 1—12).
However, Appellant’s arguments are again unpersuasive of reversible
error because they are improperly based on Kong alone, and do not take into
consideration what the combined disclosures of Kong and Berger would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention. Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
7
Appeal 2017-005526
Application 13/722,632
As discussed above, Berger’s disclosure of a multilayer cap structure
230 comprising magnetic layers 232, 236 formed of a CoCrPtB alloy that
includes 0.1—30 atomic % platinum and 0.1—20 atomic % boron coupled to a
granular layer 210 (recording structure), reasonably would have led one
ordinary skill in the art to utilize such a CoCrPtB alloy to form Kong’s
single layer capping layer 169. Therefore, although Kong may disclose that
capping layer 169 decreases the magnetization field of the first and second
ferromagnetic layers of Kong’s recording layer 160, the proposed
combination of the applied prior art utilizes a CoCrPtB alloy as disclosed in
Berger—rather than the CoCrPtB alloy disclosed in Kong—to form Kong’s
capping layer 169. Consequently, Kong does not teach away from utilizing
a CoCrPtB alloy including 0.1—30 atomic % platinum and 0.1—20 atomic %
boron as disclosed in Berger to form Kong’s a single layer capping layer
169 (magnetic stabilization structure), because Kong does not criticize or
discredit use of such an alloy for forming a single layer capping layer that
contacts a multilayer recording structure. Fulton, 391F.3datl201; Gurley,
27 F.3d at 552-53.
Because a combination of the relied-upon disclosures in Kong and
Berger would have suggested a single capping layer having a composition
and structure that appears to be the same as, or substantially similar to, the
single-layer magnetic stabilization structure recited in claim 1, a reasonable
basis exists for determining that the suggested single capping layer would
possess the same characteristics or attributes as the recited single-layer
magnetic stabilization structure, including magnetically stabilizing an upper
portion of the multi-layer recording structure, as recited in claim 1. PAR
Pharm., Inc. v. TWIPharm., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
8
Appeal 2017-005526
Application 13/722,632
(concept of inherency, when applied to obviousness, is present “when the
limitation at issue is the ‘natural result’ of the combination of prior art
elements”); In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (explaining that
a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable.).
Therefore, the burden shifts to Appellant to show otherwise. In re
Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (“Where ... the claimed and prior
art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by
identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an
applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently
possess the characteristics of his claimed product.”); In re Crish, 393 F.3d
1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[W]hen the prior art evidence reasonably
allows the PTO to conclude that a claimed feature is present in the prior art,
the evidence ‘compels such a conclusion if the applicant produces no
evidence or argument to rebut it.’” (quoting Spada, 911 F.2d at 708 n.3)).
Appellant does not direct us to any persuasive evidence or reasoning
demonstrating that Kong’s single capping layer formed of a CoCrPtB alloy
that includes 0.1—30 atomic % platinum and 0.1—20 atomic % boron as
disclosed in Berger would not magnetically stabilize an upper portion of
Kong’s multi-layer recording structure, as recited in claim 1. Br. 6—11.
Therefore, Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive of reversible error.
Appellant further argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would
“point to the contradicting purposes of Kong and Berger as evidence of no
reasonable motivation to combine the references.” Br. 6—7. Appellant
contends that the Examiner, therefore, “engaged in blatant improper
hindsight reconstruction.” Br. 11.
9
Appeal 2017-005526
Application 13/722,632
However, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, as discussed above, the
Examiner correctly finds that Berger’s disclosure of a multilayer cap
structure 230 coupled to a granular layer 210 (recording structure) of a
magnetic recording medium, and disclosure of the suitability of forming
magnetic layers 232, 236 of the multilayer cap structure with a CoCrPtB
alloy that includes 0.1—30 atomic % platinum and 0.1—20 atomic % boron,
reasonably would have led one ordinary skill in the art to utilize such a
CoCrPtB alloy as disclosed in Berger to form Kong’s single capping layer
169 that contacts first and second ferromagnetic layers 161, 163 of Kong’s
recording layer 160 in Kong’s magnetic recording medium 100. Therefore,
contrary to Appellant’s arguments, because the Examiner articulates
reasoning having rational underpinning for combining the relied-upon
disclosures of Kong and Berger, the proposed combination is not based on
hindsight. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (requiring “some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness”) (cited with approval in KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex
/«c., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007)).
Appellant further argues that the boron and platinum ranges recited in
claim 1 provide unexpected higher Hk combined with High Ms, allowing a
very thin top continuous layer to be used to increase moment at the top of a
perpendicular data recording medium. Br. 10 (citing Spec. 10).
However, Appellant’s arguments lack persuasive merit because they
are not supported by factual evidence, such comparative test data provided
in a Declaration. Although Appellant points to page 10 of the Specification,
we find no actual data supporting Appellant’s assertion of unexpected results
in this portion of Appellant’s Specification. See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116
10
Appeal 2017-005526
Application 13/722,632
F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is well settled that unexpected results
must be established by factual evidence. ‘Mere argument or conclusory
statements in the specification does not suffice.’”) (quoting In re De Blauwe,
736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.Cir. 1994)).
Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence relied-upon in this
appeal supports the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness, and we therefore
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 6—9, 18, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites that the single-layer
magnetic stabilization structure provides a magnetic saturation level of
greater than about 600 eg/cm2 and anisotropic field strengths (Hk) of greater
than about 15,000 Oersteds (Oe).
The Examiner finds that “given that Kong in view of Berger discloses
the exact material and concentration for the single-layer magnetic
stabilization layer, it is clear that Kong in view of Berger inherently
discloses the dependent claims[’] Hs and Hk values.” Ans. 9.
Appellant argues that “Kong explicitly lowers Hs values” and
Berger’s magnetic cap layers increase exchange coupling, while page 10 of
Appellant’s Specification discloses that some boron and platinum
combinations “can increase exchange coupling to the detriment of data
storage performance.” Br. 12. Appellant argues that “the ordinary artisan
would identify the contradiction between the cap structure of Berger
intended on increasing exchange coupling with the claimed single magnetic
stabilization structure that has increased Hk and Hs without increasing
exchange coupling or jeopardizing data storage performance.” Id.
11
Appeal 2017-005526
Application 13/722,632
However, contrary to Appellant’s arguments, Appellant’s
Specification states that the single-layer magnetic stabilization structure
“operates to stabilize the top portion of the recording layers by providing a
high level of exchange coupling to the top portion of the recording layers.”
Spec. 5,11. 19-20. Thus, Appellant’s single-layer magnetic stabilization
layer, like Berger’s multilayer cap structure, provides a high level of
exchange coupling.
In addition, as discussed above, because a combination of the relied-
upon disclosures in Kong and Berger would have suggested a single capping
layer having a composition and structure that appears to be the same as, or
substantially similar to, the single-layer magnetic stabilization structure
recited in claim 1, from which claim 5 depends, a reasonable basis exists for
finding that the suggested single capping layer would possess the same
characteristics or attributes as the recited single-layer magnetic stabilization
structure, including a magnetic saturation level of greater than about 600
ep/cnf and anisotropic field strengths (Hk) of greater than about 15,000
Oersteds (Oe), as recited in claim 5. PAR Pharm., 773 F.3d at 1195; Spada,
911 F.2d at 709. Therefore, the burden shifts to Appellant to show
otherwise. Best, 562 F.2d at 1255. Appellant does not direct us to any
persuasive evidence or reasoning demonstrating that Kong’s single-layer
capping layer formed of a CoCrPtB alloy that includes 0.1—30 atomic %
platinum and 0.1—20 atomic % boron as disclosed in Berger would not have
a magnetic saturation level and anisotropic field strengths as recited in claim
5. Br. 11-12.
12
Appeal 2017-005526
Application 13/722,632
Accordingly, a preponderance of the evidence relied-upon in this
appeal supports the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness, and we therefore
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejections II and III
We consider only claim 10, because claims 12—17 each depend
directly or indirectly from claim 10. As set forth above, claim 10 requires
the single layer of hard magnetic material to have a thickness of less than
1% of a topmost recording layer of the recording structure.
Appellant’s Specification indicates that the recording structure recited
in claim 10 may be comprised of a number of layers, including a soft
magnetic underlayer 304 sputtered onto a substrate 302, one or more
interlayers 306, and one or more recording layers 308. Spec. 5,11. 3—6, 24—
26; Fig. 3. Appellant’s Specification further discloses forming the single­
layer magnetic stabilization structure 310—or single layer of hard magnetic
material as recited in claim 10—on the recording layer 308 of the recording
structure. Spec. 5,11. 13—26; Fig. 3. Therefore, if the recording layer 308
includes more than one layer, the “topmost recording layer” of the recording
structure recited in claim 10 is the layer of the recording layer 308 that is
next to the single-layer magnetic stabilization structure 310 (single layer of
hard magnetic material). If the recording layer 308 includes only one layer,
the “topmost recording layer” of the recording structure recited in claim 10
is the single recording layer 308.
The Examiner finds that Kong discloses that the capping layer 169
(single layer of hard magnetic material) of Kong’s recording layer 160 has a
thickness of approximately 5 nm. Final Act. 6 (citing Kong | 65). The
Examiner finds that “Kong fails to disclose that the magnetic stabilization
13
Appeal 2017-005526
Application 13/722,632
layer has a thickness that is less than 1 % of the thickness of the topmost one
of the at least one magnetic recording layer.” Final Act. 6. The Examiner
finds that Nishikawa discloses a magnetic recording layer having a thickness
of 500 nm. Final Act. 6 (citing Nishikawa | 60). The Examiner concludes
that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to
determine a thickness of the magnetic layer of Kong [] such that the
magnetic stabilization layer was <1 % of the thickness thereof by optimizing
the results effective variable (thickness of the granular layer) through routine
experimentation.” Final Act. 6.
However, as discussed above, Kong discloses a recording layer 160
having a three-layer structure comprised of a first ferromagnetic layer 161, a
second ferromagnetic layer 163, and a capping layer 169 (single-layer
magnetic stabilization structure). Kong | 61; Fig. 1. Kong discloses that the
first and second ferromagnetic layers 161, 163 each have a thickness of
approximately 10 nm, and the capping layer 169 has a thickness of
approximately 5 nm. Kong | 65. The second (upper) ferromagnetic layer
163 of Kong’s recording layer 160 corresponds to the “topmost recording
layer” recited in claim 10, in accordance with the description in Appellant’s
Specification of Appellant’s multilayer recording structure (discussed
above). Therefore, Kong discloses that the capping layer 169 (single layer
of hard magnetic material) has a thickness that is 50% of the thickness of the
second ferromagnetic layer 163 (topmost recording layer).
The Examiner does not identify any disclosure in Kong imparting any
significance to the thickness of the capping layer 169 (single-layer magnetic
stabilization structure) relative to the thickness of the second ferromagnetic
layer 163 (topmost recording layer). Nor does the Examiner identify any
14
Appeal 2017-005526
Application 13/722,632
disclosure in Kong indicating how decreasing the 5 nm thickness of Kong’s
capping layer 169 (single-layer magnetic stabilization structure) relative to
the 10 nm thickness of the second ferromagnetic layer 163 (topmost
recording layer) by more than 50 times would impact Kong’s perpendicular
magnetic recording medium. In re Sebek, 465 F.2d 904, 907 (CCPA 1972)
(“Where, as here, the prior art disclosure suggests the outer limits of the
range of suitable values, and that the optimum resides within that range, and
where there are indications elsewhere that in fact the optimum should be
sought within that range, the determination of optimum values outside that
range may not be obvious.”)
Accordingly, the Examiner does not identify any teaching in Kong, or
provide any other persuasive reasoning or evidence, establishing that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have had a reason to significantly decrease the
thickness of Kong’s capping layer 169 (single-layer magnetic stabilization
structure) such that it would be less than 1% of the thickness of the second
ferromagnetic layer 163 (topmost recording layer), as recited in claim 10.
Consequently, the Examiner’s evidence and explanation are
insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject
matter of claim 10, and we therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 10 and 12—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5—9, 18, and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 10
and 12—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
15
Appeal 2017-005526
Application 13/722,632
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
16