Ex Parte Igarashi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

13287292 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/287,292 11/02/2011
21003 7590 07/05/2016
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
30 ROCKEFELLER PLAZA
44THFLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10112-4498
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Masukazu Igarashi
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.
072388.0650 9124
EXAMINER
DRA VININKAS, ADAM B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
DLNYDOCKET@BAKERBOTTS.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASUKAZU IGARASHI, YO SATO,
MASATO SHIIMOTO, and KEIICHI NAGASAKA
Appeal2015-000647
Application 13/287,292 1
Technology Center 2800
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, and 12-15. 2 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is HIT ACRI, Ltd. App. Br.
1.
2 Claims 9-11 are withdrawn. App. Br. 2. Claims 4 and 6 are objected to.
Final Act. 6.
Appeal2015-000647
Application 13/287,292
Invention
The claims are directed to a magnetic recording head and a
magnetic recording device for irradiating a high-frequency magnetic
field on a magnetic recording medium to drive magnetic resonance.
Spec. 1.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized:
1. A magnetic recording head comprising:
a write pole;
a field generation layer that generates a high-frequency
field; and
a reference layer that supplies spin torque to the field
generation layer;
wherein the reference layer is configured to satisfj;
conditions (Hext -Hk + Hd-e.u) > 0 and (Hext + Hk-Hd-e.u) > 0, when
an external magnetic field is generated between the write pole
and another pole, and applied to the reference layer, the external
magnetic field is represented as Hext, a magnetic anisotropy field
of the reference layer is represented as Hk, and an effective
demagnetizing field in a vertical direction of a film surface of the
reference layer is represented as Hd-eff·
Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Takagishi (US 2010/0027161 Al; publ. Feb.
4, 2010).
2
Appeal2015-000647
Application 13/287,292
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of
record in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred. We
disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our
own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action
from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the findings and the reasons set
forth in the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by
the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for
emphasis as follows.
Independent Claims 1, 12
Appellants contend the Examiner erred rejecting independent claims 1
and 12 because Takagishi does not disclose "a reference layer that supplies
spin torque to the field generation layer; wherein the reference layer is
confi2:ured to satisfv conditions (H,,vt - H"' + H.iAf) > 0 and (H,,vt + H"' - H.iAf) '--' el ' ...,,,._., ..._,,._ ......, ...,.._.._/ ' ...,,,._., ..._,,._ ......, ...,.._.._/
> O," as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent
claim 12. App. Br. 5-9; Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants argue that Takagishi does not disclose a composition ratio
of a multilayer film and does not take into account that it is necessary to
realize both the velocity factor V and the saturation factor S as described in
the Specification. App. Br. 7. Appellants also argue that it is inappropriate
to use (Co/Pt)n or (Co/Pd)n for a reference layer as disclosed by Takagishi.
App. Br. 6. Appellants further argue that it would be impossible to uniquely
extract Co/Ni, change the composition ratio thereof, or find predetermined
conditions for Sor V based on Takagishi's disclosure. App. Br. 8.
3
Appeal2015-000647
Application 13/287,292
Appellants' argument that it is inappropriate to use (Co/Pt )n and
(Co/Pd)n for a reference layer (see App. Br. 6) is not responsive to the
Examiner's findings. The Examiner did not rely on (Co/Pt)n and (Co/Pd)n
to teach the claimed conditions, but rather used (Co/Ni)n. Final Act. 3, 4
(citing Takagishi, Fig. 2, i-fi-158, 59); see also Ans. 5. Although we agree
with Appellants that Takagishi does not inherently disclose a 1: 1 ratio
between Co and Ni (compare Reply Br. 2 with Ans. 6) no such ratio is
recited in claims 1 and 12. Takagishi's (Co/Ni)n is the same multilayer
structure disclosed by Appellants and Appellants have not persuasively
refuted the Examiner's finding that this composition satisfies the conditions
(Hext - Hk + H 0 and (Hext + Hk - H 0. Final Act. 4; Ans. 5, 6;
Spec. 20-21.
With respect to Appellants' argument that it would be impossible to
extract Co/Ni, change the composition ratio thereof, or find predetermined
conditions for Sor V based on Takagishi's disclosure, this is mere attorney
argument and not evidence. "Attorney's argument ... cannot take the place
of evidence." In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (citation
omitted); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney
arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie
case). Similarly, Appellants argument that "the spin injection layer of
Takagishi always contains Cu" (Reply Br. 2; see also App. Br. 6) does not
provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to persuade us the Examiner erred
in finding "Takagishi merely teaches that Cu within a spin injection layer is
an option rather than a requirement" (Ans. 5).
Therefore, we do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive and we
find the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner's finding that
4
Appeal2015-000647
Application 13/287,292
Takagishi discloses "a reference layer that supplies spin torque to the field
generation layer; wherein the reference layer is configured to satisfy
conditions (Hext - Hk + Hd-eff) > 0 and (Hext + Hk - Hd-eff) > O," as recited in
independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claim 12.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1
and 12.
Remaining Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 13-15
Appellants have not presented separate substantive, persuasive
arguments with respect to claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 13-15. See App. Br. 9.
Any arguments made by Appellants with respect to these claims merely
repeat the same or similar arguments already raised or merely recite the
language of the particular claim and assert the cited prior art reference does
disclose the claim limitation. Without independent arguments, however,
such contentions fail to constitute a separate issue of patentability. See 37
C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim
recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the
claim."); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e
hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more
substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim
elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not
found in the prior art."). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 13-15.
5
Appeal2015-000647
Application 13/287,292
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, and 12-
15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6