Ex Parte Sendur et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 3, 2009

10447602 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 3, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte IBRAHIM KURSAT SENDUR, WILLIAM ALBERT
CHALLENER, and CHUBING PENG
________________

Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602
Technology Center 2600
________________

Decided:1 June 4, 2009
________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 CFR § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1 through 8 and 10 through 21.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and system of increasing storage
density of a recording media used in heat assisted magnetic recording
systems. See Spec. 1-3. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and
reproduced below:
1. A data storage medium comprising:
an electrically conductive heat sink layer; and
a plurality of discrete magnetic recording elements
positioned adjacent to a first surface of the heat sink layer.

REFERENCES

Suzuki US 5,703,733 Dec. 30, 1997

Ruigrok WO 01/73763 A1 Mar. 27, 2001

2 Appellants properly cancelled claim 9 in an Amendment dated August 29,
2005.
2
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 and 10-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ruigrok in view of Suzuki. Ans. 3-5.

ISSUES
Rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ruigrok in view of Suzuki

Claims 1 and 6
Appellants argue on pages 3-7 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2-3 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 6 is in error.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner has failed to establish motivation to
combine the references. App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 3.
Thus, with respect to claims 1 and 6, Appellants’ contentions present
us with the issue: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in
combining Ruigrok with Suzuki?
Claims 7 and 15
Appellants argue on page 7 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 7 and 15 is in error. Claim 7 contains similar limitations
as claim 1 and claim 15 is dependent upon claim 7. Appellants present
many of the same arguments discussed above with respect to claim 1. App.
Br. 7. Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 7 and 15 present us with the same issue as claim 1.
Claims 2 and 11
Appellants argue on page 8 of the Appeal Brief that claims 2 and 11
are allowable based upon their dependency on claims 1 and 7. Thus,
3
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

Appellants’ arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2
and 11 present us with the same issue as claims 1 and 7.
Claims 3 and 12
Appellants argue on page 8 of the Appeal Brief that claims 3 and 12
are allowable based upon their dependency on claims 1 and 7. Thus,
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3
and 12 present us with the same issue as claims 1 and 7.
Claims 4 and 13
Appellants argue on page 10 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4 and 13 is in error. Appellants argue that claims 4 and
13 are allowable based upon their dependency on claims 1 and 7. App. Br.
10. Appellants additionally argue that Ruigrok does not teach that
aluminum has an anisotropic thermal conductivity. App. Br. 10.
Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 4 and 13 present us with the same issue as claims 1 and 7.
Additionally, with respect to claims 4 and 13, Appellants’ contention
presents us with the issue: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred
in finding that Ruigrok teaches aluminum having an anisotropic thermal
conductivity?
Claims 5 and 14
Appellants argue on pages 10-11 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 14 is in error. Appellants argue that
claims 5 and 14 are allowable based upon their dependency on claims 1 and
7. App. Br. 10. Appellants additionally argue that Suzuki does not teach
discrete magnetic recording elements that are self-ordered structures. App.
Br. 11.
4
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 5 and 14 present us with the same issue as claims 1 and 7.
Additionally, with respect to claims 5 and 14, Appellants’ contention
presents us with the issue: Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred
in finding that Suzuki teaches self-ordered structures as discrete magnetic
recording elements?
Claim 8
Appellants argue on page 11 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 8 is in error. Appellants argue that claim 8 is allowable
based upon its dependency on claim 7. App. Br. 11. Appellants additionally
argue that Ruigrok does not teach the direction of the electromagnetic
radiation. App. Br. 11.
Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 8 present us with the same issue as claim 7. Additionally, with
respect to claim 8, Appellants’ contention presents us with the issue: Have
Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Ruigrok teaches
the electromagnetic radiation having a substantially perpendicular electric
field component to the surface of a heat sink?
Claim 10
Appellants argue on page 11 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 10 is in error. Appellants argue that claim 10 is allowable
based upon its dependency on claim 7. App. Br. 11. Appellants additionally
argue that Ruigrok does not teach the use of one of a metallic pin and a ridge
waveguide. App. Br. 11.
Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 10 present us with the same issue as claim 7. Additionally, with
5
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

respect to claim 10, Appellants’ contention presents us with the issue: Have
Appellants shown that the Examiner erred in finding that Ruigrok teaches
the use of a metallic pin or a ridge waveguide?
Claims 16, 17, 18, and 21
Appellants argue on pages 11-12 of the Appeal Brief that claim 16 is
allowable for the same reasons as claim 1 is allowable. In addition,
Appellants argue that claims 17, 18, and 21 are allowable based upon their
dependency on claim 16. App. Br. 11-12. Thus, Appellants’ arguments
with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 17, 18, and 21 present
us with the same issue as claim 1.
Claim 19
Appellants argue on page 12 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 19 is in error. Appellants argue that claim 19 is allowable
based upon its dependency on claim 16. App. Br. 12. Appellants
additionally argue, on page 12 of the Appeal Brief, the same issue as
presented with claims 4 and 13. Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect
to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 present us with the same issue as
claims 4, 13, and 16.
Claim 20
Appellants argue on pages 12-13 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 is in error. Appellants argue that claim 20
is allowable based upon its dependency on claim 16. App. Br. 13.
Appellants additionally argue, on page 13 of the Appeal Brief, the same
issue as presented with claims 5 and 14. Thus, Appellants’ arguments with
respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 present us with the same
issue as claims 5, 14, and 16.
6
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

FINDINGS OF FACT
Ruigrok
1. Ruigrok discloses “a storage medium for thermally-assisted
magnetic recording [that includes]…a recording layer having
substantially parallel tracks for recording information.” Pg. 1, ll.
1-3.
2. The recording layer is located on the surface of a heat sink and
may be comprised of an aluminum substrate. Pg. 24, ll. 28-29, pg.
25, ll. 3-4, and Fig. 11.
3. Aluminum may be used as a heat sink because it has a very high
thermal conductivity. Pg. 25, ll. 4-5.
4. Ruigrok teaches a system with a recording head. The recording
head comprises a wave guide or laser that is directed toward the
recording layer in a substantially perpendicular manner. Pg. 25, ll.
23-33 and Fig. 13.
5. The recording layer is on the surface of an intermediate layer. The
intermediate layer is on the surface of a heat sink. Pg. 25, ll. 23-33
and Fig. 13.
Suzuki
6. Suzuki teaches a magnetic reproducing apparatus comprising a
magnetic recording medium and a magnetic recording head. The
magnetic recording medium comprises a protecting film, a soft
magnetic material pattern, and a non magnetic material such as
aluminum, plastic, or glass. Col. 8, ll. 33-37, col. 10, ll. 25-33, and
Figs. 1 and 4.
7
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

7. The magnetic recording medium may be formed into a pattern.
Col. 8, ll. 33-37, and Figs. 1 and 4.
8. The magnetic head includes a permanent magnet and a
magnetoresistive converting (MR) element. Col. 10, ll. 25-33.
9. As shown in Figure 5(a), the magnetic field is applied in a
direction perpendicular to the recording medium and the heat sink.
Col. 13, ll. 11-14 and Fig. 5(a).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Office personnel must rely on Appellants’ disclosure to properly
determine the meaning of the terms used in the claims. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 980 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).
“[I]nterpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be confused with
adding an extraneous limitation appearing in the specification, which is
improper.” In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed.
Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted; emphasis in
original).
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
8
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. . . . [A] court
must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established
functions.

Id. at 417. “One of the ways in which a patent’s subject matter can be
proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of the invention a
known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the
patent’s claims.” Id. at 419-420.
It is well settled that when a claimed product reasonably appears to be
substantially the same as a product disclosed in the prior art, the burden of
proof is shifted to applicant to prove that the prior art product does not
inherently or necessarily possess the characteristics attributed to the claimed
product. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708-709 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Best,
562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977). “Whether the rejection is based on
‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on ‘prima face obviousness’ under 35
U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its
fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture the products or
to obtain and compare prior art products.” Best, 562 F.2d at 1255 (CCPA
1977).

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ruigrok in view of Suzuki

Claims 1 and 6
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1 and 6. Claim 1 recites “an electrically conductive heat
9
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

sink layer; and a plurality of discrete magnetic recording elements
positioned adjacent to a first surface of the heat sink layer.” Claim 6 is
dependent upon claim 1 and further recites “wherein the discrete magnetic
recording elements comprise a plurality of ridges.” Appellants argue that
the combination of the references is not obvious because there is no
motivation to combine the references in the manner claimed, there is no
reasonable expectation of success, and the prior art references do not teach
all of the claim limitations. App. Br. 3-10. The Examiner has found that
there is a motivation to combine the references, there is a reasonable
expectation of success, and that the combination of Ruigrok and Suzuki
teach all of the claimed limitations. Ans. 6-8. We agree with the Examiner.
Appellants argue that the combination of the prior art references is
obvious if there is motivation to combine the references in the particular
manner claimed. App. Br. 5. However, in KSR, the Supreme Court decided
that a teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references was not
required. KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. The Court characterized the TSM test
merely as “helpful insight.” Id. at 419. In KSR, the Supreme Court has
stated that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. The combination of Ruigrok with Suzuki
yields predictable results.
Ruigrok discloses “a storage medium for thermally-assisted magnetic
recording [that includes]…a recording layer having substantially parallel
tracks for recording information.” FF 1. The recording layer is located on
top of a heat sink. FF 2. The heat sink may be comprised of an aluminum
substrate. FF 3.
10
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

Suzuki teaches a magnetic recording medium that comprises a non
magnetic material such as aluminum, plastic, or glass, a soft magnetic
material pattern, and a protecting film. FF 6. The soft magnetic material
pattern is equivalent to the claimed plurality of discrete magnetic recording
elements.
Both references disclose a magnetic storage medium with a magnetic
material located on top of a substrate. Both references suggest that the
substrate could be comprised of aluminum. Therefore, we consider using
Suzuki’s soft magnetic material pattern with Ruigrok’s aluminum substrate
heat sink layer to be nothing more than using a known device to perform its
known function. As such the combination is obvious.
Even if the TSM test was still required, the Examiner has provided a
motivation to combine the references. Ans. 4. The Examiner stated, on
page 4 of the Answer, that the combination would “provide a magnetically
recording/reproducing method which a large number of copies can be easily
made in the same manner as an optical disc, and so in which information
with high density can be recorded and reproduced while using magnetism.”
Ans. 4 (quoting Suzuki col. 3, ll. 22-28). Appellants argue that the
motivation is insufficient because the “references do not address the issue of
efficiently coupling incident electromagnetic radiation to discrete magnetic
recording elements.” App. Br. 6. However, as correctly noted by the
Examiner, this “issue” is not recited in the claim limitations. Ans. 7.
Therefore, Appellants’ argument has not identified an error in the
Examiner’s reasoning as to why the skilled artisan would have combined the
teachings. In the absence of such argument and evidence, we find the
Examiner’s finding that a skilled artisan would have combined the
11
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

references to be sufficient as the Examiner has established that the
combination is a predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
Appellants additionally argue that there is no reasonable expectation
of success in combining Ruigrok with Suzuki. App. Br. 9-10. We disagree.
As noted above, we have found that the combination of the references would
yield predictable results. Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation of
success.
Finally, Appellants argue that neither of the references teaches all of
the claim limitations set forth in claim 1. App. Br. 9. However, as shown
above, Ruigrok teaches that the recording layer is located on top of a heat
sink. FF 2. In addition, Suzuki teaches a soft magnetic material pattern (FF
6) that is equivalent to the claimed plurality of discrete magnetic recording
elements. Therefore, all of the claimed limitations of claim 1 have been
found. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 6 are sustained.
Claims 7 and 15
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 15. Claim 7 contains similar
limitations to claim 1 and claim 15 is dependent upon claim 7. Appellants’
arguments present the same issues discussed with respect to claim 1. App.
Br. 7. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 15 for
the reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2 and 11
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 11. Claim 2 is dependent upon claim 1
and claim 11 is dependent upon claim 7. Appellants’ arguments present the
12
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

same issues discussed with respect to claims 1 and 7. App. Br. 8.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 11 for the
reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1 and 7.
Claims 3 and 12
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 12. Claim 3 is dependent upon claim 1
and claim 12 is dependent upon claim 7. Appellants’ arguments present the
same issues discussed with respect to claims 1 and 7. App. Br. 8.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 12 for the
reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 1 and 7.
Claims 4 and 13
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 13. Claim 4 is dependent upon claim 1
and claim 13 is dependent upon claim 7. Appellants present similar
arguments for claims 4 and 13 as for claims 1 and 7. App. Br. 10. As
discussed above, the arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 are not found
to be persuasive and therefore the similar arguments presented with respect
to claims 4 and 13 are also not found to be persuasive of error. However,
claims 4 and 13 contain an additional limitation not found in claims 1 and 7.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the heat sink has an anisotropic thermal
conductivity.” Claim 13 recites a similar limitation. The Examiner has
found that Ruigrok teaches a heat sink that may be comprised of aluminum.
Ans. 7. Appellants argue that Ruigrok teaches aluminum that has an
isotropic thermal conductivity since Ruigrok states that aluminum has a
uniform thermal conductivity. App. Br. 10. We find no evidence to support
Appellants’ position.
13
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

Ruigrok teaches an aluminum substrate that may serve as the heat
sink. FF 2. Ruigrok goes on to describe that aluminum might be used as a
heat sink because it has a very high thermal conductivity. FF 3. Appellants,
mistakenly state that Ruigrok teaches a uniform thermal conductivity and
therefore, an isotropic thermal conductivity. App. Br. 10. However, as
properly noted by the Examiner, Appellants use the same material Ruigrok
uses for a heat sink, aluminum. Ans. 7. Appellants admit that aluminum
can have either isotropic or anisotropic thermal conductivity. App. Br. 10.
As a result, the use of aluminum with either type of thermal property is
nothing more than using a known substance to perform a known function
since the purpose of a heat sink is to draw heat away from a particular area
and not to maintain a uniform temperature. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4 and 13.
Claims 5 and 14
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 14. Claim 5 is dependent upon claim 1
and claim 14 is dependent upon claim 7. Appellants present similar
arguments for claims 5 and 14 as for claims 1 and 7. App. Br. 10-11. As
discussed above, the arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 are not found
to be persuasive and therefore the similar arguments presented with respect
to claims 5 and 14 are also not found to be persuasive of error. However,
claims 5 and 14 contain an additional limitation not found in claims 1 and 7.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the discrete magnetic recording elements comprise
self-ordered structures.” Claim 14 recites a similar limitation. Appellants’
Specification does not specifically define the term “self-ordered structures.”
As a result, the Examiner has found that a pattern is a type of self-ordered
14
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

structure. Ans. 7. Appellants argue that “[s]elf-ordered structures do not
require a pattern” (App. Br. 11). However, Appellants have not indicated
why a pattern cannot contain self-ordered structures, as such we are not
persuaded that the Examiner’s interpretation of the term “self-ordered
structures” is in error.
Suzuki teaches forming a magnetic recording medium into a pattern.
FF 6. As a result of the Examiner’s reasonable interpretation, Suzuki,
therefore, also teaches forming a magnetic recording medium into self-
ordered structures. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5
and 14.
Claim 8
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. Claim 8 is dependent upon claim 7.
Appellants present similar arguments for claim 8 as for claim 7. App. Br.
11. As discussed above, the arguments with respect to claim 7 are not found
to be persuasive and therefore the similar arguments presented with respect
to claim 8 are also not found to be persuasive of error. However, claim 8
contains an additional limitation not found in claim 7. Claim 8 recites “a
near field transducer for producing electromagnetic radiation having an
electric field component substantially perpendicular to a surface of the heat
sink.” Appellants argue that Ruigrok does not teach the direction of any
electric field component. App. Br. 11. We disagree.
Ruigrok teaches a recording head with a wave guide or laser that has a
window facing the recording layer. FF 4. The wave guide or laser is
directed toward the recording layer in a substantially perpendicular manner.
15
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

FF 4. The recording layer is located on the surface of an intermediate layer
and the intermediate layer is located on the surface of a heat sink. FF 5.
Suzuki also teaches a magnetic reproducing apparatus comprising a
magnetic recording medium and a magnetic recording head. FF 6. The
magnetic recording medium includes a plastic substrate, patterns made of
soft magnetic material, and a protecting film. FF 6. The magnetic head
includes a permanent magnet and a magnetoresistive converting (MR)
element. FF 8.
Suzuki’s Figure 5(a) shows the magnetic field lines produced by a
recording head similar to Ruigrok’s Figure 13. The magnetic field lines are
directed in a perpendicular direction to the surface of the recording medium
and thereby the magnetic field lines are directed in a perpendicular direction
toward the heat sink. FF 9. As a result, the electric field lines are also
directed in a perpendicular direction to the heat sink. Therefore, we find
ample evidence to support the finding that the prior art teachings includes
that the electric field component produced by the recording head is
substantially perpendicular to the surface of a heat sink. Thus, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.
Claim 10
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 10. Claim 10 is dependent upon claim 7.
Appellants present similar arguments for claim 10 as for claim 7. App. Br.
11. As discussed above, the arguments with respect to claim 7 are not found
to be persuasive and therefore the similar arguments presented with respect
to claim 10 are also not found to be persuasive of error. However, claim 10
contains an additional limitation not found in claim 7. Claim 10 recites “the
16
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

near field transducer comprises one of a metallic pin and a ridge
waveguide.” Thus, the scope of the claim requires that the near field
transducer comprise either a metallic pin or a ridge waveguide. The
Examiner has found that Ruigrok teaches a ridge waveguide. Ans. 5.
Appellants argue that Ruigrok does not teach a metallic pin and a ridge
waveguide. App. Br. 11. However, the claim limitation only requires one or
the other and not both as argued by Appellants. Ruigrok teaches a recording
head that comprises a wave guide or a laser. FF 4. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
Claims 16, 17, 18, and 21
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 16, 17, 18, and 21. Claim 16 contains similar
limitations to claim 1 and claims 17, 18, and 21 are dependent upon claim
16. Appellants’ arguments present the same issues discussed with respect to
claim 1. App. Br. 11-12. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 16, 17, 18, and 21 for the reasons discussed supra with respect to
claim 1.
Claim 19
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 19. Claim 19 is dependent upon claim 16 and
contains similar limitations to claims 4 and 7. Appellants’ arguments
present the same issues discussed with respect to claims 4, 7 and 16. App.
Br. 12. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19 for the
reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 4, 7 and 16.
Claim 20
17
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 20. Claim 20 is dependent upon claim 16 and
contains similar limitations to claims 5 and 14. Appellants’ arguments
present the same issues discussed with respect to claims 5 and 14 and 16.
App. Br. 12-13. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 19
for the reasons discussed supra with respect to claims 5 and 14 and 16.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in combining
Ruigrok with Suzuki.
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Ruigrok teaches aluminum having an anisotropic thermal conductivity.
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Suzuki teaches self-ordered structures as discrete magnetic recording
elements.
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
either Ruigrok or Suzuki teaches the electromagnetic radiation having a
substantially perpendicular electric field component to the surface of a heat
sink.
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Ruigrok teaches the use of a metallic pin or a ridge waveguide.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-21 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).
18
Appeal 2009-000798
Application 10/447,602

AFFIRMED

ELD

ROBERT P. LENART
PIETRAGALLO, BOSICK & GORDON
ONE OXFORD CENTRE, 38TH FLOOR
301 GRANT STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15219

19