Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2012

11746900 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012)

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, Virgima 223 13-1450

www,uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
3498111746,900 05110/2007 Young Keun Kim L&K1l2
32047 7590 11127/2012 EXAMINER
GROSSMAN, TUCKER, PERREAULT & PFLEGER, PLLC

55 SOUTH COMMERICAL STREET
HARRIS, GARY D
MANCHESTER, NH 03101
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1727
MAlL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11127/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YOUNG KEUN KIM, YOU-SONG KIM, BYONG-SUN CHUN,
SEUNG-YOUB HAN, and JANG-ROH RHEE
____________

Appeal 2011-011427
Application 11/746,900
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, LINDA M. GAUDETTE, and
KAREN M. HASTINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2011-011427
Application 11/746,900
2
DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision1
finally rejecting claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) as anticipated by or, in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Saito (JP 2004-179187,
published Jun. 24, 2004).2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim on appeal, is representative of the
invention and is reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief:
1. A perpendicular magnetic anisotropy multilayer comprising:
a first Pt/CoFeSiB layer; and
a second Pt/CoFeSiB layer formed on the first Pt/CoFeSiB layer,
wherein the first and second Pt/CoFeSiB layers are perpendicular anisotropy
magnetization films and the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the multilayer is
about 5x105 erg/cm3 to about 5x106 erg/cm3.
“Saito discloses a magneto resistance effect element for use in magnetic
memory.” (App. Br. 8.) The Examiner concedes Saito fails to disclose a direction
of the anisotropy. (Ans.3 4; App. Br. 12.) However, the Examiner finds “the
magnetic anisotropy is an inherent feature.” (Ans. 4.) The Examiner identifies
support for this finding in the Response to Argument section of the Answer. (Id. at
8.)
In their Reply Brief4, Appellants persuasively explain why the relied-upon
disclosure in Saito fails to support a finding that the feature of perpendicular
magnetic anisotropy is necessarily present in Saito’s multilayer structure. (See
Reply Br. 5-7.)

1 Final Office Action mailed Jul. 20, 2010 (“Final”)
2 Appeal Brief filed Jan. 20, 2011 (“App. Br.”)
3 Examiner’s Answer mailed Apr. 27, 2011.
4 Filed Jun. 27, 2011 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2011-011427
Application 11/746,900
3
Because a preponderance of the evidence fails to support the Examiner’s
finding that perpendicular magnetic anisotropy is an inherent feature of Saito’s
device, we do not sustain the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) and §103(a).
REVERSED
tc