Ex Parte Chen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 14, 201713802354 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/802,354 03/13/2013 Xi Chen STC.089.A1 2451 98068 7590 Hollingsworth Davis 8000 West 78th Street Suite 450 Minneapolis, MN 55439 02/16/2017 EXAMINER CHAU, LINDA N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1785 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2017 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 XI CHEN, YINGGUO PENG, JAN-ULRICH THIELE, GANPING JU, and THOMAS ROSCAMP1 Appeal 2016-003200 Application 13/802,354 Technology Center 1700 Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and SHELDON M. McGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1—21 as unpatentable over Mallary et al. (US 8,658,292 Bl, issued Feb. 25, 2014) (“Mallary”) in view of Tamai et al. (US 2012/0154948 Al, published June 21, 2012) (“Tamai”). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. 1 Seagate Technology LLC is identified as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-003200 Application 13/802,354 We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appellants claim a magnetic stack comprising a substrate 210 and a magnetic recording layer 250 comprising magnetic crystalline grains 251 and a segregant 252 disposed between grain boundaries of the crystalline grains, wherein one or both of the magnetic crystalline grains and the segregant are doped to provide a magnetic damping parameter value between about 0.1 to about 1, “and the amount of dopant varies as a function of distance along an axis normal to the surface of the magnetic recording layer” (independent claim 1, Fig. 2). Appellants also claim a similar magnetic stack comprising a magnetic recording layer 470 comprising first and second sublayers 450, 460 having first and second crystalline grains and segregant, wherein one or both of the first crystalline grains and segregant are doped “and the amount of dopant varies as a function of distance along an axis normal to the surface of the magnetic recording layer” (independent claim 11, Fig. 4). In this latter magnetic stack, the first and second sublayers 450, 460 may have respectively first and second anisotropy fields Hkl and Hk2, where Hkl is less than Hk2 and the first sublayer is arranged between the second sublayer and the substrate (dependent claim 14, Fig. 4). Finally, Appellants claim a magnetic stack having first and second magnetic recording layers with first and second crystalline grains and segregants respectively, wherein a boundary thickness of the second segregant provides a second damping parameter value for the second magnetic recording sublayer between about 0.1 to about 1 (independent claim 16) and wherein the boundary thickness is greater than about 1.5 nm (dependent claim 17) or in a range of about 1.5 nm to about 3 nm (dependent claim 18). 2 Appeal 2016-003200 Application 13/802,354 A copy of representative claims 1, 11, 14, and 16—18, taken from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, appears below. 1. A magnetic stack, comprising: a substrate; and a magnetic recording layer disposed over the substrate and comprising magnetic crystalline grains and a segregant disposed between grain boundaries of the crystalline grains; wherein one or both of the magnetic crystalline grains and the segregant are doped with a rare earth metal or transition metal dopant in an amount that provides the magnetic recording layer with a magnetic damping parameter value, a, between about 0.1 to about 1, and the amount of dopant varies as a function of distance along an axis normal to the surface of the magnetic recording layer. 11. A magnetic stack, comprising: a substrate; and a magnetic recording layer disposed over the substrate and comprising: a first magnetic recording sublayer comprising first magnetic crystalline grains and a first segregant disposed between grain boundaries of the crystalline grains; and a second magnetic recording sublayer including second magnetic crystalline grains and a second segregant disposed between grain boundaries of the second magnetic crystalline grains, wherein one or both of the first magnetic crystalline grains and the first segregant are doped with a rare earth or transition metal dopant in an amount that provides the magnetic recording layer with an overall damping value, a, between about 0.1 to about 1, and the amount of dopant varies as a function of distance along an axis normal to the surface of the magnetic recording layer. 14. The magnetic stack of claim 11, wherein: the first magnetic recording sublayer has first anisotropy field, Hkl; the second magnetic recording sublayer has second anisotropy field, Hk2, where Hkl < Hk2, and the first magnetic recording sublayer is arranged between the second magnetic recording sublayer and the substrate in the magnetic stack. 3 Appeal 2016-003200 Application 13/802,354 16. A magnetic stack, comprising: a substrate; and a magnetic recording layer disposed over the substrate and comprising: a first magnetic recording sublayer comprising first magnetic crystalline grains and a first segregant disposed between grain boundaries of the crystalline grains; and a second magnetic recording sublayer including second magnetic crystalline grains and a second segregant disposed between grain boundaries of the second magnetic crystalline grains, wherein one or both of the first magnetic crystalline grains and the first segregant are doped with a rare earth or transition metal dopant in an amount that provides the magnetic recording layer with an overall damping value, a, between about 0.1 to about 1, and wherein a boundary thickness of the second segregant between adjacent second magnetic crystalline grains of the second magnetic recording sublayer provides a second damping parameter for the second magnetic recording sublayer between about 0.1 to about 1 and the second damping parameter contributes to the overall damping parameter of the magnetic recording layer. 17. The magnetic stack of claim 16, wherein the boundary thickness is greater than about 1.5 nm. 18. The magnetic stack of claim 16, wherein the boundary thickness is in a range of about 1.5 nm to about 3 nm. The Rejection of Claims 1—13, 15, 20, and 21- The Examiner finds that Mallary discloses a magnetic stack comprising a magnetic recording layer containing the type and amount of dopant used by Appellants such that the recording layer “intrinsically” 2 Appellants present arguments directed to independent claims 1 and 11 but do not present arguments specifically directed to their dependent claims 2— 10, 12, 13, 15, 20, and 21 (App. Br. 9, 11). Therefore, these dependent claims will stand or fall with their parent independent claims. 4 Appeal 2016-003200 Application 13/802,354 would possess a damping parameter value within the claimed range (Final Action 3), and Appellants do not argue otherwise. The Examiner also finds that Mallary does not disclose the recording layer comprises crystalline grains and segregant as claimed but concludes that it would have been obvious “to modify Mallary’s recording layer to be granular with segregant, since Tamai discloses that this is a known structure for a recording layer” (id.). Appellants argue that the rejection is erroneous because the proposed modification “would improperly change the principle operation of Mallary’s capping layer” (App. Br. 11). Appellants contend that Mallary’s Figure 2 illustrates capping layer 228 as a continuous layer without the crystalline grains and boundaries of Mallary’s recording layers 224 and 226 and that the Examiner proposes replacing capping layer 228 with a granular layer including a segregant (id.). According to Appellants, such a replacement “would eliminate or reduce the capping layer’s control of lateral exchange interaction” (id.), “would also remove or reduce the capping layer’s facilitation of alignment of the underlying grains” (id.), and “would undermine the influence the capping layer 228 exerts on the underlying recording layers and change the operation of the recording layer interactions” (id.). Appellants’ argument is not persuasive for multiple reasons. First, Appellants’ characterization of capping layer 228 as a continuous layer without the crystalline grains and boundaries of layers 224 and 226 is undermined by Mallary’s general reference to “the grains of the magnetic media” (Mallary col. 5,1. 61). Second, contrary to Appellants’ contention, the Examiner does not propose, nor do the claims require, that capping layer 228 specifically be replaced with a granular and segregant layer as taught by 5 Appeal 2016-003200 Application 13/802,354 Tamai. Rather, the Examiner proposes “modify[ing] Mallary’s recording layer to be granular with segregant” (Final Action 3) which encompasses modifying recording layers 224 and 226 only and thereby satisfies the rejected claims. Third, even if capping layer 228 were replaced with a granular and segregant layer, Appellants provide no evidence that the stated changes would occur or that such changes would alter inappropriately the principle of operation of Mallary’s magnetic stack. Regarding independent claims 1 and 11 specifically, Appellants concede that Mallary discloses doped top and middle recording layers and an undoped bottom recording layer but argue that such disclosure “makes no mention of varying amounts of dopant within a layer or sublayer, as claimed” (App. Br. 9). In particular, Appellants argue that undoped bottom recording layer 224 and doped middle recording layer 226 “are separated by exchange coupling layer 225” (Reply Br. 8) and that these separate layers do not satisfy the dopant variation within a recording layer as required by claim 1 or a recording sublayer as required by claim 11 (id.). Appellants fail to embellish their argument with any reason for considering claims 1 and 11 to exclude an embodiment wherein the recited recording layer or recording sublayer comprises multiple layers separated by an exchange coupling layer as disclosed by Mallary. On the other hand, the Specification explicitly teaches the use of multiple sublayers separated by a layer 458 for providing “exchange coupling” (Spec. 1 bridging 12—13). Regardless, Mallary expressly discloses an embodiment wherein “the exchange coupling layers are eliminated from the media structure” (Mallary col. 6,11. 21—23). Under these circumstances, we discern no convincing merit in Appellants’ argument regarding claims 1 and 11. 6 Appeal 2016-003200 Application 13/802,354 For the above-stated reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—13, 15, 20, and 21 as unpatentable over Mallary in view of Tamai. The Rejection of Claim 14 Appellants argue that the graded anisotropy of Mallary is opposite to that required by claim 14 (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 9). In response, the Examiner urges that Appellants’ argument is limited to the initial graded anisotropy of Mallary and that Mallary teaches adding a material to increase the anisotropy field thereby resulting in the graded anisotropy of claim 14 (Ans. at 5—6). Alternatively, the Examiner states that “the claim [14] language encompasses any directional relationship for the anisotropy fields” (id. at 6). The Examiner’s above quoted statement is erroneous. The plain language in the last two lines of claim 14 requires that the anisotropy field Hk2 of the second (i.e., upper) sublayer to be greater than the anisotropy field Hkl of the first (i.e., lower) sublayer as correctly explained by Appellants (Reply Br. | bridging 8—9). Appellants also correctly explain that Mallary repeatedly teaches that the graded anisotropy resulting from addition of material is about the same as the initial graded anisotropy (id. at 9 (citing Mallary col. 4,11. 8—12, col. 5,11. 9—14)). In contrast, the Examiner provides no evidence to support the proposition that Mallary contains any teaching or suggestion of the anisotropy relationship defined by claim 14. We will not sustain, therefore, the Examiner’s claim 14 rejection. The Rejection of Claims 16—18 The Examiner finds that Mallary fails to disclose the boundary thickness limitations of claims 16—18 but that paragraph 71 of Tamai teaches 7 Appeal 2016-003200 Application 13/802,354 a 0.5 nm thickness is adequate and greater thicknesses would be advantageous (Final Action 5). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide Mallary with segregant having boundary thicknesses within the claimed ranges in view of Tamai {id. at 5—6). Appellants argue that neither Mallary nor Tamai contains any teaching or suggestion of a segregant boundary thickness adequate to provide a second damping parameter value between about 0.1 to about 1 as required by independent claim 16 (App. Br. 6—7) such as the particular boundary thicknesses recited in dependent claims 17 and 18 {id. at 8). Appellants emphasize that Tamai’s teaching of a 0.5 nm thickness would not have suggested the thicknesses required by these dependent claims {id.). Appellants’ argument is persuasive. The Examiner fails to provide any rationale for the proposition that Tamai’s 0.5 nm thickness would have suggested thicknesses greater than about 1.5 nm as recited in claim 17 or in a range of about 1.5 nm to about 3 nm as recited in claim 18. Similarly, the Examiner fails to identify any disclosure in Tamai of specific thicknesses other than the aforementioned 0.5 nm thickness. Finally, the Examiner fails to provide any evidence that the 0.5 nm thickness of Tamai’s segregant would provide a damping parameter between about 0.1 to about 1 as required by independent claim 16. It follows that we also will not sustain the rejection of claims 16—18. Conclusion The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part. 8 Appeal 2016-003200 Application 13/802,354 TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation