Ex Parte PinarbasiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 201411879667 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation