Ex Parte Hong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 10, 2016

12077814 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/077,814
98068 7590
Hollingsworth Davis
8000 West 78th Street
Suite 450
03/20/2008
11/15/2016
Minneapolis, MN 55439
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sooyoul Hong
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
STC.085.Al 7421
EXAMINER
CHAU, LINDA N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1785
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2016 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):
tdotter@hdpatlaw.com
roswood@hdpatlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SOOYOUL HONG, KISEOK MOON, and CARL (XIAO) CHE
Appeal2015-007012
Application 12/077,814
Technology Center 1700
Before PETER F. KRAZ, JEFFREY T. SMITH, and
N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRATZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 11-15, 17, 18, 20-27, and 29-38. We
have jurisdiction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6.
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to apparatus comprising a
substrate, an anti-ferromagnetic layer comprising FexNi1-xO over the
substrate, and a patterned perpendicular magnetic layer over the anti-
ferromagnetic layer and an exchange-spring formed by the latter two layers.
A method for forming the device/apparatus is also claimed. The
Appeal2015-007012
Application 12/077,814
Specification provides that "[t]he FexNi1_xO material has a Neel temperature 1
between 200° to 520° K" (Spec. 8).
Claim 11 is illustrative and reproduced below:
11. An apparatus, comprising:
a substrate;
an anti-ferromagnetic layer over the substrate comprising FexNi1_xO;
a patterned perpendicular magnetic layer over the anti-ferromagnetic
layer; and
an exchange-spring formed by the anti-ferromagnetic layer and the
magnetic layer.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence
in rejecting the appealed claims:
De Haas
Suess
Berger
US 2004/0086750 Al
US 2007 /0292720 Al
US 2008/0292907 Al
May 6, 2004
Dec. 20, 2007
Nov. 27, 2008
Nogues, Exchange bias, Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 192,
203-232 (1999).
The Examiner maintains the following grounds of rejection:
1. Claims 11-15, 17, 18, 21-27, and29-36 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suess in view of De Hass.
2. Claims 20, 37, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Suess in view of De Hass and Berger.
1 According to the Oxford English Dictionary ( oed.com), an
antiferromagnetic material's Neel temperature (TN) is a transition
temperature (point), above which temperature the material is paramagnetic.
According to Nogues (J. Nogues, Ivan Schuller, Exchange Bias, Journal of
Magnetism and Magnetic Materials, 192 (1993) 203-232) submitted by
Appellants and of record, the TN for NiO is 520 °K and the TN range for
FexNi1-xO is 200-520 °K (Table 2, p. 212).
2
Appeal2015-007012
Application 12/077,814
Appellants' argument and Declaration evidence expose no reversible
error in the Examiner's obviousness rejections. Accordingly, we affirm both
of the stated rejections.
Appellants argue the rejected claims together as a group with respect
to the first stated rejection with the exception of dependent claim 17.
Accordingly, we select claim 11 as the representative claim for the claims
subject to the first stated rejection with the exception of separately argued
claim 17, which we consider separately. Appellants rely on the arguments
as made with respect to the first stated rejection in traversing the Examiner's
second stated rejection.
Rejection 1
The Examiner has determined, inter alia, that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ an anti-ferromagnetic
layer comprising NiO in the device of Suess based on DeHaas's teaching of
a ferromagnetic layer that may comprise NiO (Final Act. 2--4). In this
regard, the Examiner takes the position that representative claim 11
embraces a ferromagnetic layer that comprises NiO based on the Examiner's
interpretation of the claim term FexNi1-xO as embracing NiO (xis not
specified and may be equal to zero) (Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 3).
Appellants limit their argument to the FexNi1-xO material requirement
of the antiferromagnetic layer and argue that the Examiner's claim
interpretation is unreasonably broad and the rejection is thereby in error
because one of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret x to be zero given
that the compound formula includes iron (Fe) as evinced by a Declaration of
3
Appeal2015-007012
Application 12/077,814
Dr. Thomas P. Nolan when interpreted in light of the subject Specification
(App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 5---6).
Dr. Nolan states that "[s]ince the compound specifies iron, one would
not normally expect "x" to be equal to zero" (Deel. i-f 6).
Moreover, Dr. Nolan points to the subject Specification statement
concerning the Neel temperature range of 200 - 520 °K for FexNi1_xO
material as supporting an interpretation of x not being equal to zero for the
claimed FexNi1-xO of the anti-magnetic layer (Deel. i-f 7; Spec. p. 8, 11. 6-9).
In particular, Dr. Nolan declares that according to Wikipedia, the FeO Neel
temperature is 198 °K and the Neel temperature for NiO is 525 °K, which
indicates that the Specification Neel temperature range supports an
interpretation of the compound formula FexNi1_xO as not including zero or
one as a value for x (Declaration i-f 7).
In light of the above, Appellants argue that the Examiner's
interpretation of the claimed formula FexNi1_xO so as to read on NiO is
unreasonable and contend that the rejection should be reversed because it is
premised on a faulty claim interpretation (App. Br. 5---6). In addition, and as
for separately argued dependent claim 1 7, Appellants contend that the Neel
temperature limitation set forth in dependent claim 17 "between about 200°
and 520° K" does not include 525 °K, which is the Neel temperature for NiO
according to the Declaration of Dr. Nolan.
We reject Appellants proposed claim construction and concur with the
Examiner that the contested claim term x as employed in representative
claim 11 is open to a value of zero. Hence, we are not persuaded of
reversible error in the Examiner's first stated obviousness rejection.
4
Appeal2015-007012
Application 12/077,814
As observed by the Examiner, the subject Specification place no
numerical limits on the value of x in the formula FexNi1_xO leaving the x
term open to having a value of zero and the Declaration of Dr. Nolan is not
persuasive of error in such a broadest reasonable construction of the claim
when the claim including this contested claim term is read in light of the
subject Specification by one of ordinary skill in the art. In this regard, Dr.
Nolan statement that "one would not normally expect "x" to be equal to
zero" does not serve to articulate why one of ordinary skill in the art would
not read x as being open to a zero value when read in light of the subject
Specification (Ans. 3; Deel. i-f 6).
Moreover, dependent claim 1 7 employs the term "about" in providing
the Specification Neel temperature range that was set forth without an
"about" qualifier in the detailed description section at page 8 of the
Specification. Thus, the inclusion of dependent claiml 7 indicates that
representative independent claim 11, from which claim 1 7 depends, is not
limited by the Neel temperature range set forth in the detailed description of
the Specification. In this regard, such a broadest reasonable construction of
the contested claim term in representative claim 11 is consistent with the
Specification statement indicating that the invention is not limited by the
specific constructions described in the Specification (Spec. 8, 11. 15-22).
Significantly, the Examiner's claim construction, with which we agree, is
bolstered by Nogues, as submitted by Appellants, wherein NiO is reported as
having a TN= 520 °K. We credit the latter submission over the Wikipedia
derived TN= 525 °K for NiO as reported in the Declaration of Dr. Nolan.
Hence, even if we considered the FexNi1_xO material of claim 11 to be
limited to the Neel temperature range of 200-520 °K reported in the detailed
5
Appeal2015-007012
Application 12/077,814
description of the subject Specification (which also applies to separately
argued claim 17), NiO (TN = 520 °K) would not be excluded by the claim
term FexNi1_xO. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's first stated rejection.
Rejection 2
Concerning the separate obviousness rejection of certain dependent
claims over Suess in view of De Hass and Berger, Appellants limit their
argument to substantially the same the argument presented against Rejection
1 in relying on the Neel temperature range as a patentable distinction for the
claimed material (App. Br. 6).
It follows that we shall affirm the latter rejection (Rejection 2).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner's decision to reject the appealed claims 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).
AFFIRMED
6