Ex parte Pronk et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 23, 1998

08039552 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 23, 1998)

Application for patent filed March 29, 1993. According to appellants,1
this application is a continuation of Application 07/686,905, filed April 17,
1991.
1
Paper No. 25
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte FRANCISCUS A. PRONK,
ARIE H. VAN HEEREN
AND
EELTJE A. DRAAISMA
______________
Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,5521
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
2
claims 1 through 10, all of the claims pending in the
application.
The invention pertains to a thin-film magnetic head.
More particularly, in order to solve the problem of the prior
art wherein resistance in the connecting tracks increases to a
greater extent than the resistance in the windings, the
instant invention provides for auxiliary tracks connected in
parallel to, and on a different level than (i.e., above and
below), the connecting tracks so as to effectively increase
the cross-sections of the connecting tracks in order to lower
resistance and heat developed during operation.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A thin-film magnetic head, comprising a thin film
structure on a substrate, the structure comprising a flux
conductor layer and first and second electrically conducting
layers, which electrical conducting layers are located one
above the other at separate levels, and are at least partly
located between the substrate and the flux conductor layer,
the first layer including a first winding having a first
through-connection end, and a first connecting track as an
integral extension of, and on the same level as the first
winding, and having a first connecting end, and the second
layer including a second winding having a second through-
connection end, and a second connecting track as an integral
extension of, and on the same level as the second winding and
having a second connecting end, the through-
connection ends being interconnected and the connecting tracks
being adjacent to each other,
Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
3
characterized in that a first electrically conducting
auxiliary track is located parallel to and at a different
level than the second connecting track, in that one end of the
first auxiliary track is connected to the second connecting
track and the other end is connected to a portion of the
second connecting track which is connected to the second
winding, and in that a second auxiliary track is located
parallel to and at a different level than the first connecting
track, in that one end of the second auxiliary track is
connected to the first connecting
track and the other end is connected to a portion of the first
connecting track connected to the first winding.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Church et al. (Church) 4,219,854 Aug. 26, 1980
Matsumoto 4,672,495 June 9,
1987
Jones Jr. et al. (Jones) 4,713,711 Dec. 15,
1987
Imanaka et al. (Imanaka) 4,949,209 Aug. 14, 1990
Koyanagi et al. (Koyanagi) 5,065,270 Nov. 12, 1991
(Filed May 13, 1990)
Claims 1 through 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Imanaka in view of Koyanagi and
Matsumoto. Claims 1 through 4 and 6 through 8 stand further
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Jones in
view of Church.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
4
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning first to the rejection of claims 1 through 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Imanaka, Koyanagi and
Matsumoto, we will not sustain this rejection.
At page 4 of the answer, the examiner applies Imanaka to
the language of independent claim 1, identifying element 111a
in Imanaka as the claimed “second auxiliary track” and element
81a as the claimed “first connecting track.” The examiner
recognizes that Imanaka does not teach a second conducting
layer and a first auxiliary track, as claimed. The examiner
provides for this deficiency by citing Koyanagi for the
teaching that it was well known to provide multi-layers in a
thin-film magnetic head structure and by citing Imanaka’s
indication that Imanaka’s device is applicable to thin-film
magnetic heads having a coil of a multi-layer structure.
The examiner then contends that it would have been
obvious to have a second conducting layer and a first
auxiliary track arranged in a similar fashion as the first
Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
5
conducting layer and the second auxiliary track in Imanaka
because Imanaka indicates that his invention is applicable to
thin film magnetic heads having a coil of a multi-layer
structure and such structures
are well known in the art as taught by Koyanagi.
With regard to the claimed requirement of the connecting
tracks being on the same level, the examiner relies on
Matsumoto’s connecting tracks 3a being on the same level as
the windings 3. The examiner explains that it would have been
obvious to have the connecting tracks on the same level as the
windings in Imanaka as taught by Matsumoto because it “only
requires an obvious repositioning of elements to acquire such
an art recognized equivalent configuration...” [answer - page
6]. Further, contends the examiner, since Imanaka does not
specify that the connecting tracks are at different levels
from the windings, the placement of these tracks is not
restricted to what is depicted in Imanaka’s drawings.
First, with regard to the examiner’s combination of
Imanaka with Koyanagi, even if we consider the upper magnetic
film 111a of Imanaka to be the claimed “second auxiliary
track” and even
Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
6
if we consider element 81a to be the claimed “first connecting
track,” as the examiner recognizes, Imanaka simply does not
show or suggest a “first auxiliary track” and a “second
connecting track,” as claimed. While the examiner contends
that it would have been obvious to provide such in Imanaka
because thin-film magnetic heads having a coil of a multi-
layer structure were well known, we do not find the notoriety
of multi-layer structures in a thin-film magnetic head to have
been sufficient motivation to modify Imanaka as the examiner
proposes in order to arrive at the instant claimed invention.
Imanaka mentions “a coil of a multi-layer structure.” Merely
because the coil is, or may be, of a multi-level structure, we
find no nexus between such a teaching and the proposed
modification of Imanaka to provide for a first auxiliary track
and a second connecting track, having the claimed
relationship.
With regard to the claimed requirement of providing the
connecting track and its corresponding winding on the same
level, we find the examiner’s attempt to provide for such in
Imanaka merely because Matsumoto shows connecting tracks on
the same level as the windings to be nothing short of
Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
7
hindsight. The references provide no reason as to why the
artisan would have recognized a need to place a winding and a
corresponding connecting track “on the same level,” as
claimed, and the examiner has not provided us with any
sufficient reason. The examiner also stretches the
applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 103 beyond its limits when
explaining that because Imanaka fails to disclose, explicitly,
that the windings and connecting tracks
are not on the same level, this would lead to the conclusion
that it would have been obvious to provide for windings and
connecting tracks on the same level, as claimed. Without a
clear indication or some suggestion by the prior art that the
windings and connecting tracks are, or should be, on the same
level, we find
it speculative on the part of the examiner to assume that the
windings and connecting tracks are, in fact, at the same
level.
Because we find no prima facie case of obviousness
presented by the examiner, we will not sustain the rejection
of claims 1 through 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Imanaka,
Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
8
Koyanagi and Matsumoto.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 1 through 4, and 6
through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Jones and Church and we
find that we will not sustain this rejection either because
the examiner has not established the requisite prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the claimed subject matter.
At pages 6-7 of the answer, the examiner applies
Jones to the claimed subject matter and notes, correctly, that
Jones fails to disclose or suggest auxiliary tracks being on a
different level than the connecting tracks. The examiner then
relies on Church which teaches, in a magnetic thin-film
environment, that by varying the width of coil turn portions
such that portions furthest from the transducing gap are
widest, electrical resistance effects are minimized. More
particularly, the examiner concludes that, in view of Church,
the skilled artisan would have
realized that the cross sectional area is the
critical factor in reducing electrical resistance
and improving conductivity and that an increase in
height would have equally effected this increase in
cross sectional area and would have thus patterned
integral tracks including auxiliary tracks
positioned at a different level than conducting
tracks [answer-page 8].
Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
9
The examiner appears to be saying that because it was
known that resistance is lowered by increasing the cross
sectional area of a conductor, it would have been obvious to
place an auxiliary track at a different level (above or below)
than conducting tracks. If this is the examiner’s reasoning,
the examiner did not need the Church reference as the instant
specification, itself, [at page 4] indicates that enlarging
cross sections of the windings would solve the prior art
problem of heat developing as a result of increased resistance
as connecting tracks and windings become smaller. However, as
the specification indicates, “[i]t is also very difficult to
enlarge the cross-sections of the windings, as this changes
the ratios between the height and the other head dimensions,
which may have detrimental effects.”
Thus, the problem of the prior art was known as was a
solution, i.e., increase cross-sectional area of the windings.
Therefore, the mere knowledge of the relationship between
cross-sectional area and resistance would not, per se, have
led the artisan to the solution claimed by appellants.
Appellants’ invention involves a very specific embodiment,
through the use
Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
10
of auxiliary tracks, arranged as claimed, to effect the known
larger cross-section. It is appellants, alone, who teach the
provision of auxiliary tracks which are situated above and
below the connecting tracks, contacting the connecting tracks,
thereby effecting the desired larger cross-sectional area of
the connecting tracks and decreasing resistance. Neither
Jones nor Church teaches or suggests the provision of such
auxiliary tracks. The conclusion of the examiner that it
would have been obvious to employ such auxiliary tracks to
increase the cross-sectional area could only have been reached
through an improper use of hindsight, with appellants’
invention in mind.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims
1 through 4 and 6 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on
Jones and Church.
Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
11
The examiner’s decision is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)

)
ERROL A. KRASS )BOARD OF
PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
INTERFERENCES
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
12
Algy Tamoshunas, Esq.
U.S. Philips Corporation
Intellectual Property Department
580 White Plains Road
Tarrytown, NY 10591
Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
13
EAK/cam