Ex Parte Pinarbasi

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2014

11879667 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MUSTAFA MICHAEL PINARBASI

___________

Appeal 2012-004804
Application 11/879,667
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR. and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1–18, 29, 30, and
32 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 5. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2012-004804
Application 11/879,667
2

Introduction
The invention is directed to “A magnetic head having a CPP read head
sensor that includes a layered sensor stack including an antiferromagnetic
(AFM) layer, a pinned magnetic layer, and a free magnetic layer.” Abstract.

Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A magnetic head, comprising:
a CPP read sensor including a pinned magnetic layer and a free
magnetic layer, wherein said sensor is formed with an air bearing
surface (ABS);
wherein a back wall of said free magnetic layer defines a sensor
stripe height SH between the ABS and said back wall of said free
magnetic layer;
wherein said pinned magnetic layer has a back wall that defines
a height H of said pinned magnetic layer between said ABS and said
back wall of said pinned magnetic layer, and wherein H is greater than
SH; and wherein said pinned magnetic layer is formed with a
thickness t where the ratio of t/H is from approximately 1/10 to
approximately 1/500; and
wherein said pinned magnetic layer is comprised of a high
positive magnetostriction material that is disposed upon a conditioned
surface that has been ion milled,
wherein said conditioned surface has physical characteristics of
being ion milled in a same direction as a direction of magnetization of
the pinned magnetic layer at a grazing angle of from approximately
45° to approximately 80° from normal to said conditioned surface.

Appeal 2012-004804
Application 11/879,667
3

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1–18, 29, 30, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a)
as being unpatentable over Kagami (US Patent Application Publication
Number 2004/0061986 A1; published April 1, 2004) and Lin (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2004/0095691 A1; published May 20,
2004). Answer 4–8.

ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 7, 2011), the Answer (mailed
November 22, 2011), and the Reply Brief (filed January 23, 2012) for the
respective details. We have considered in this decision only those
arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments that
Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant argues the rejection fails to render the claimed invention
obvious because Lin fails to disclose Kagami’s deficiency as the Examiner
finds. Appeal Brief 13. Appellant contends the Examiner’s assertion fails to
address “the Appellant’s point that Lin fails to teach ion milling of a pinned
magnetic layer disposed upon a conditioned surface [of a pinning layer] that
has been ion milled . . .” Id. at 14.
The Examiner finds Lin discloses “[A] magnetic read element (402)
having an AFM film [pinning layer] (438 or 538) that has been ion milled to
reduce thickness of the layer.” Answer 5. The Examiner asserts that it
would have been obvious to ion mill Kagami’s AFM/pinning layer top
surface (33) to improve the giant magnetoresistive (GMR) coefficient as
taught by Lin. Id. at 5–6. The Examiner further asserts that because
Appeal 2012-004804
Application 11/879,667
4

Kagami’s AFM/pinning layer’s top surface is in contact with the pinned
magnetic layer’s (34) bottom surface, modifying the AFM/pinning layer’s
top surface would result in the pinned magnetic layer disposed on a surface
conditioned by ion milling as recited in the claims. Id.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that adjusting the thickness of
Kagami’s pinning layer (33) by Lin’s ion milling would result in the
Kagami’s pinned layer (34) disposed upon the conditioned surface of the
pinning layer (33) as recited in both independent claims 1 and 10. However,
claim 1 further recites the physical characteristics of the pinning layer is
altered by changing the graze angle of the ion mill in a specific direction of
the magnetization of the pinned magnetic layer.
Appellant argues Lin utilizes ion milling for thinning the pinning layer
and fails to disclose the bombardment angle much less the grazing angle as
recited in claim 1. Appeal Brief 16 (citing Lin [66]). Therefore, we find
Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive because the claimed grazing angle
and the resulting physical characteristics of the pinned layer are critical to
the novelty of the invention. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 1, as well as, dependent claims 2–9 and 30.
Independent claim 10 only requires the “pinned magnetic layer is
comprised of a high positive magnetostriction material that is disposed upon
a conditioned surface that has been ion milled.” As we articulated above,
Kagami in combination with Lin discloses a pinning layer having an ion
milled conditioned surface with a pinned layer disposed upon the
conditioned surface of the pinning layer. We do not find Appellant’s
arguments to be persuasive because the Examiner articulated reasoning—
thinning the pinning layer in order to improve the GMR coefficient—
provided rational underpinning to support the conclusion of obviousness.
Appeal 2012-004804
Application 11/879,667
5

See Answer 5–6. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 10, as well as, dependent claims 11–18 and
32 not argued separately.
Dependent claim 29 argued separately, distinguishes over the prior art
for the same reason as articulated above because the claim recites physical
characteristics of the conditioned surface of the pinning layer originating
from the specified grazing angle. See Appeal Brief 35–36. Therefore, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 29.

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) rejection of claims 1–9, 29, and
30 is reversed.
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) rejection of claims 10–18 and 32
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)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tj