Ex parte Stageberg et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 17, 2000

08331684 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 17, 2000)

1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 25
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte FRANK E. STAGEBERG
and BRIAN S. ZAK
________________
Appeal No. 1997-3473
Application 08/331,684
________________
HEARD: January 24, 2000
________________
Before THOMAS, HECKER and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HECKER, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 1997-3473
Application No. 08/331,684
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 14. Claims 15 through 24 have been withdrawn
from consideration as being directed to a non-elected
invention. Appellants’invention relates to a thin film
magnetic head. Looking at prior art Figure 1, thin film
magnetic head 10 has a core 12 having top pole piece 14,
bottom pole piece 16, pole center 30, coil windings 18 and gap
24. The top pole piece 14 includes top pole paddle 21 and top
pole tip 20. Bottom pole piece 16 includes bottom pole paddle
23 and bottom pole tip 22. Pole center 30 joins top and
bottom pole pieces 14 and 16 at a location remote from gap 24
to complete a magnetic circuit. A magnetic storage medium
(not shown) may be placed near gap 24 such that information
may be written on or read from the medium.
As shown in prior art Figure 3, insulation layers 28, 29,
and 32, as well as coil windings 18, are located over bottom
pole paddle 23 and do not extend out over bottom pole tip 22.
Because there is a buildup of materials over bottom pole
Appeal No. 1997-3473
Application No. 08/331,684
3
paddle 23 and not over bottom pole tip 22, hill region 25
develops in the formation process. Metallic seed layer 33 is
then typically deposited in a uniform thickness, and a
photoresist layer 36 is then spun down onto seed layer 33, and
therefore has a varying thickness, being thinnest at hill
region 25. Photoresist layer 36 is then patterned for top
pole piece 14, and when the patterned area of 36 is washed
away, an opening or mold is formed in layer 36 for pole piece
14. However, because photoresist layer 36 is spun on in
liquid form, it is much thinner at hill region 25 than it is
in the regions above bottom pole tip 22 and bottom pole paddle
23. At hill region 25, layer 36 is insufficient to
effectively act as a mold for top pole piece 14. As can be
seen in prior art Figure 5, top pole piece 14 is higher than
the top surface of layer 36, resulting in the deformation of
pole piece 14 resulting in over plate at 35.
Appellants avoid over plate 35 by using a cavity
insulation layer 64 (shown in Figure 9 at the hill region).
Here, cavity insulation layer 64 provides extra thickness,
effectively raising the level of top pole photoresist layer 66
(layer 36 in Figure 5), relative to that of top pole piece 44
Appeal No. 1997-3473
Application No. 08/331,684
4
(14 in Figure 5). Thus, the top pole piece 44 is lower than
the top surface of photoresist layer 66, which allows the
formation of top pole piece 44 with well defined edges with no
over plate.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. A thin film magnetic head comprising:
a bottom magnetic pole piece having a paddle and a
tip region;
an insulation layer on the bottom magnetic pole
piece;
a cavity layer having a predetermined thickness on
the insulation layer, the cavity layer containing an aperture
defining at least a portion of a paddle region for a top
magnetic pole piece on the insulation layer; and
a top magnetic pole piece on the insulation layer
having a paddle region having a shape at least partially
defined by the aperture of the cavity layer and having a tip
region, the top magnetic pole piece having a height at least
partially defined by the thickness of the cavity layer.

The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Appeal No. 1997-3473
Application No. 08/331,684
5
Kawabe et al. (Kawabe) 5,245,493 Sep. 14, 1993
Claims 1 through 6, 8, 10 through 12 and 14 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Kawabe.
Claims 7, 9, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Kawabe.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief, reply brief, answer
and supplemental answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us, we do
not agree with the Examiner that claims 1 through 6, 8, 10
through 12 and 14 are anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
Kawabe, nor do
we agree that claims 7, 9 and 13 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Kawabe.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
Appeal No. 1997-3473
Application No. 08/331,684
6
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984). "Anticipation
is established only when a single prior art reference
discloses, expressly or under principles of inherency, each
and every element of a claimed invention." RCA Corp. v.
Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221
USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228
(1984), citing Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760,
772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Appellants do not dispute that Kawabe teaches most of the
claimed elements, much like Appellants’ admitted prior art
figures. However, Appellants argue that Kawabe does not teach
their claimed cavity layer, and its relationship to the top
magnetic pole piece.
The Examiner maintains that Kawabe teaches a cavity layer
as 13, see Figure 7(a), with an aperture 16. The Examiner
proposes three ways that the claim language is met. (1)
Aperture 16 partly defines the shape of the top paddle, where
Appeal No. 1997-3473
Application No. 08/331,684
7
the top paddle extends through aperture 16 (answer-top of page
4). (2) The Examiner further states:
Additionally, the area between insulation (13) and
(25), filled by the magnetic pole (12), as depicted
in FIGS. 12 and 13, is also considered to be a
cavity substantially containing a top magnetic pole
piece (12) in which a height of the top magnetic
pole piece (12) is “defined” by the depth of the
cavity. (Answer-page 4.)
And (3) where the Examiner states:
Alternatively, the insulation portion (28) is
considered to have a “cavity”, i.e., if the magnetic
head including portions (11-16, 21,22,25,26 and 81)
were removed, a cavity would exist. (Answer-page
4.)
Appellants argue that Kawabe’s aperture 16 is a contact
hole, and as such, does not define at least a portion of the
shape of the top paddle region (brief-page 5).
We agree with the Examiner that Kawabe’s contact hole 16
can be considered an aperture, and part of that aperture can
be looked upon as a cavity. “However, words of ordinary usage
must nonetheless be construed in the context of the patent
documents. Thus the court must determine how a person of
experience in the field of this invention would, upon reading
the patent documents, understand the words used to define the
Appeal No. 1997-3473
Application No. 08/331,684
8
invention.” Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc.,
____ F.3d ____, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1067 (CAFC 1999). Thus,
although a very small portion of Kawabe’s top paddle conforms
to the shape of “aperture 16", the shape of the top paddle, as
construed in the context of the specification, is not
determined by the portion which passes through 16. Thus, the
Examiner’s number (1) proposal does not meet the language
shape which is presented in differing language in all
independent claims.
With respect to the Examiner’s number (2) proposal, that
the cavity is that volume occupied by tip 12, we also find
such a view to be contrary to the context of the
specification. This is especially so when you consider that
tip 12 is not the top paddle region, but merely overlaps part
of the top paddle region. Thus, such a cavity would not
contribute to the shape of the top paddle.
With respect to the Examiner’s number (3) proposal, that
Kawabe’s insulation layer 28 could be considered the cavity,
we again find such a view to be contrary to the context of the
specification. This is especially so since layer 28 is a
Appeal No. 1997-3473
Application No. 08/331,684
9
protective layer, and does not serve to shape anything.
Claim 10 requires even more consideration of the
specification since “means for” language is used in the claim.
As argued by Appellants:
The means forming a cavity must be construed in
light of the corresponding structure, material or
acts described in the specification and equivalents
thereof. In re Donaldson, 29 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1845,
1848 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Thus, the cavity-forming
means includes the cavity layer 64 and its aperture,
substantially containing the top magnetic pole piece
44. (Brief-page 9.)
Thus, we will not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1 through 6, 8, 10 through 12 and 14.
The Examiner has rejected claims 7, 9 and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kawabe as recited for the 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection, taking official notice of the “seed layer”
being “notoriously old and well known in the art”. We note
that Appellants have not contested the Examiner’s position on
the seed layer, nor made specific comments on this rejection.
However, since the Examiner’s basic premise, that Kawabe
meets all the limitations of the independent claims is not
convincing, and since claims 7, 9 and 13 inherently contain
Appeal No. 1997-3473
Application No. 08/331,684
10
the
same unmet limitations, we will also not sustain the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection of these claims.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claim 1 through 6, 8, 10 through 12 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and claims 7, 9 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 is reversed.
REVERSED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Stuart N. Hecker )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Anita Pellman Gross )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-3473
Application No. 08/331,684
11
David R Fairbairn
Kinney and Lange, P.A.
The Kinney + Lange Building
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis MN 55415-1002

Appeal No. 1997-3473
Application No. 08/331,684
12