11724536 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2014)

Ex Parte Hou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 18, 2014

11724536 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/724,536 03/15/2007 Chunhong Hou 430.13420010 3918 75742 7590 08/19/2014 MUETING, RAASCH & GEBHARDT, P.A. P.O. Box 581336 Minneapolis, MN 55458-1336 EXAMINER POLO, GUSTAVO D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2695 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/19/2014 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 CHUNHONG HOU, SHAOPING LI, JOHN M. WOLF, and SINING MAO ____________________ Appeal 2012-003466 Application 11/724,536 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before RICHARD E. SCHAFER, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.2 1 The Real Party in Interest is Seagate Technology LLC, which is the owner of the entire right, title and interest in the application, subject to a security interest of The Bank of Nova Scotia. Br. 2. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed June 24, 2011 (“Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed Oct. 7, 2011 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed Feb. 2, 2011 (“Final Office Action”); and original Specification filed Mar. 15, 2007 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-003466 Application 11/724,536 2 INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to field-assisted magnetic recording. Spec. p. 1, ll. 1-7. Specifically, a magnetic writer 10 includes a write pole 22 that is magnetized by conductive coils 24, causing a magnetic field at pole tip 34 to write data to the magnetic medium 14. Spec. p. 3, ll. 4-13; Fig. 1. To lower the coercivity of the medium 14, a high-frequency write assist current IA flows through conductive element 12 to the pole tip 34 in a cross-track direction. Spec. p. 5, ll. 3-11; Fig. 2A. This current IA generates a write assist field HA in the medium 14 to facilitate the writing of data. Spec. p. 6, ll. 4-13; Fig. 3A. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A writer comprising: a write element including a tip portion to generate a write field during a write operation; and a conductive assembly that is configured to deliver a write assist current through the tip portion in a cross-track direction to generate a write assist field during the write operation that extends beyond a medium confronting surface located at the tip portion to lower a coercivity of a magnetic medium proximate to the write element. (Emphasis added). The limitations emphasized in claim 1 are of particular relevance to this appeal. Independent claims 9 and 15 contain similar limitations. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Appeal 2012-003466 Application 11/724,536 3 Xue US 2006/0198047 A1 Sept. 7, 2006 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Xue.3 Appellants seek our review of this rejection. ANALYSIS The Examiner rejected claim 1 on the following grounds: As per claim 1, Xue discloses a write element (Fig. 23 or Fig. 28) including a tip portion (Fig. 23, 506 and 508) to generate a write field during a write operation (¶ 45, ll. 4-6); and a conductive assembly (524) that delivers a write assist current through the tip portion to generate a write assist field during the write operation that extends beyond a medium confronting surface located at the tip portion to lower a coercivity of a magnetic medium proximate to the write element (¶ 42). However, Xue is silent on the conductive assembly delivering the write assist current through the tip portion in a "cross-track direction." Xue does teach that delivering the write assist current through the tip portion optimizes writability (see ¶ 44) and shows that there exists at least two different directions that can be used to accomplish this purpose. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that there is a finite number of directions in which the write assist current can be applied. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to deliver the current in the cross-track direction because there would be a reasonable expectation of success to yield predictable results based on the fact that the current works in more than one direction in Xue. (Ans. 4-5)(emphasis added). 3 Final Office Action 1-2; Ans. 4. Appeal 2012-003466 Application 11/724,536 4 This obviousness rejection is thus based upon an “obvious to try” rationale. MPEP § 2143E. Specifically, the Examiner states that because Xue discloses write assist current in the in-track direction (Figs. 25 and 26) and the in-disk direction (Fig. 28), then a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider it obvious to apply the write assist current using the third option, i.e., in the cross-track direction. See Ans. 6-9, regarding claims 1, 9, and 15. The Supreme Court has noted that the “obvious to try” rationale may apply when “there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions” to a known problem.4 Appellants argue that applying a write assist current in the cross-track direction is not obvious to try for a person of ordinary skill because it is not an identified, predictable solution in Xue. Ans. 5; Br. 8-10. The Appellants present various reasons in support of its argument which is addressed below. The Examiner and Appellants agree that Xue is silent with respect to providing a write assist current through a tip portion (claim 1), write pole tip (claim 9) or write element (claim 15), in the cross-track direction. Ans. 5-8; Br. 9-11. Accordingly, this appeal turns on whether there is sufficient evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art, considering Xue, would regard it obvious to try applying a write assist current through a tip portion (claim 1), write pole tip (claim 9) or write element (claim 15), in the cross- track direction. In the Xue embodiments mentioned in the rejection, as noted by the Appellants (Br. 9-11), a conductor 524, 566 provides current to drive an oscillating layer 518, 568 and polarizing layer 522, 572 to induce magnetic assist fields in an axial or planar direction in a magnetic medium. Xue ¶¶ 46-48; Figs. 23, 25-26, 28, and 31. The oscillating layer 518, 568 is driven 4 KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Appeal 2012-003466 Application 11/724,536 5 by current, and the amplitude and frequency of current are used along with other variables in establishing resonance of the magnetic field in the medium and in assisting the operation of writing to the medium (Xue ¶ 44). The magnetic assist fields produced by the oscillating layer 518, 568 rotate around a field axis determined by the polarizing layer 518, 566. Xue ¶ 47. It is true that conductor 524, 566 are oriented in different directions in Figs. 23, 25, and 26 as compared to Figs. 28 and 31 of Xue, and the current direction may flow in the in-track and in-disk directions in these various embodiments, as noted by the Examiner. Ans. 9. However, the direction of current applied to the oscillator 518, 568 and polarizer 518, 566 is not a disclosed variable for field generation in Xue. See generally Xue ¶¶ 41-49; Figs. 23-31. Furthermore, as noted by Appellants, the vertical embodiments of Xue (Figs. 28, 30 and 31) show the conductor 566 separate from the write pole 556. Thus, in these embodiments, the write assist current does not flow through the tip portion (claim 1), write pole tip (claim 9) or write element (claim 15) as required by the claims. For these reasons, we find that there is insufficient evidence in the record before us to demonstrate that a person of ordinary skill in the art considering Xue would regard it obvious to try to vary the current direction through the tip portion (claim 1), write pole tip (claim 9) or write element (claim 15), in the cross-track direction in order to generate the write assist field. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 15. Our Decision on this ground renders it unnecessary to address Appellants’ other arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 15, dependent claims 6 and 13 or any of the remaining dependent claims. Appeal 2012-003466 Application 11/724,536 6 DECISION For the above reasons, on the record before us, the rejection of claims 1-18 is reversed. REVERSED rwk