SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2020

2019004916 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/632,154 09/30/2012 Antonio Javier Zambano STL 17012.00 7419
64776 7590 06/30/2020
Holzer Patel Drennan - Seagate Technology LLC
216 16th Street
Suite 1350
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
CHAU, LINDA N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1785
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docket@hpdlaw.com
hiplaw@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANTONIO JAVIER ZAMBANO,
LI TANG, and JOHN DAVID WESTWOOD
__________

Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, GEORGE C. BEST, and
DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4–12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21–27. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellant’s invention is directed to magnetic recording media (Spec.
¶ 1). The Specification describes methods and systems for using magnetic
seed layers with hexagonal close-packed (hcp) structures and in-plane

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Seagate
Technology LLC (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

2
magnetic anisotropy as a layer on a hard disk storage medium (id. ¶¶ 12, 14;
Figs. 2, 3).
Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis added):
1. An apparatus comprising:
a substrate;
a soft underlayer overlying said substrate; and
a magnetic seed layer magnetically coupled to and in
overlying contact with said soft underlayer, wherein said
magnetic seed layer is formed from a hexagonal close-packed
with out-of-plane magneto-crystalline anisotropy structure,
wherein the magnetic seed layer grown on an adhesion layer
has out-of-plane magnetic anisotropy and wherein the magnetic
seed layer is in overlying contact with the soft underlayer and
maintains magnetization in longitudinal direction, and wherein
said magnetic seed layer is permeable by magnetic flux being
emanated from a write pole and wherein said magnetic seed
layer has a net in-plane magnetic anisotropy in a same
direction as in-plane magnetic anisotropy of the soft underlayer
and wherein the magnetic flux travels in longitudinal direction
in the soft underlayer and the magnetic seed layer when the
magnetic flux is applied.
Appellant appeals the following rejections:
A. Claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21–27 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watanabe (US 2012/0028077
A1, published Feb. 2, 2012), as evidenced by University of
Minnesota, Magnetic Anisotropy (“UMN”) or Institut de Physique des
Nanostructures, Magnetocrystalline anisotropy energy: MAE (K)
(“NANO”), in view of Inamura et al. (US 2008/0075979 A1,
published Mar. 27, 2008) (“Inamura”), and further in view of
Futamoto et al. (US 6,686,070 B1, issued Feb. 3, 2004) (“Futamoto”).
Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

3
B. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Watanabe, as evidenced by UMN or NANO, in view of Inamura,
Futamoto, and further in view of Acharya et al. (US 7,241,516 B1,
issued July 10, 2007) (“Acharya”).
C. Claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21–24, 26, and 27 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Watanabe, as
evidenced by UMN or NANO, in view of Girt et al. (US
2009/0011283 A1, issued Jan. 8, 2009) (“Girt”).
D. Claims 2, 9, 10, and 25–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Watanabe, as evidenced by UMN or NANO, in
view of Girt, and further in view of Inamura.
E. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Watanabe, as evidenced by UMN or NANO, in view of Inamura, in
view of Futamoto, and further in view of Acharya.
Appellant argues the claims as a group and offers separate arguments
in support of independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 21, 26, and 27
(see generally Appeal Br. 8–15; Reply Br. 2–7). Claims 4–12, 14, 16, 17,
19, and 22–25 will stand or fall with our analysis of independent claim 1. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2018). Claims 1, 2, 21, 26, and 27 will be
discussed separately.
FINDINGS OF FACT & ANALYSIS
After review of the respective positions provided by Appellant and the
Examiner, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons presented by
the Examiner and add the following for emphasis.
Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

4
A. Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 21–27 as
unpatentable over the combination of Watanabe, UMN or NANO,
Inamura, and Futamoto.
1. Claims 1, 4–12, 14, 16, l17, 19, and 22–25
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
regarding Watanabe, UMN or NANO, Inamura, and Futamoto are located on
pages 3–5 of the Final Office Action and pages 3–5 of the Answer.
The Examiner finds that Watanabe’s magnetic recording medium,
comprising a substrate, a soft underlayer overlying the substrate, and a
magnetic seed layer overlying the soft underlayer, teaches each limitation of
the claimed apparatus, except the magnetic seed layer’s and the soft
underlayer’s particular features (Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds that
although Watanabe’s magnetic seed layer is formed from an hcp crystalline
structure, Watanabe does not disclose that the seed layer possesses: (i) out-
of-plane magneto-crystalline anisotropy structure; (ii) a net in-plane
magnetic anisotropy in the same direction as the in-plane magnetic
anisotropy of the soft underlayer; and (iii) a magnetic flux, which travels in
longitudinal direction in the soft underlayer and the magnetic seed layer
when the magnetic flux is applied (id. at 4).
Regarding missing limitation (i), the Examiner relies on UMN and
NANO for providing evidence that Watanabe’s hcp crystalline structure
would have inherently possessed an out-of-plane magneto-crystalline
anisotropy structure (id.).
With respect to missing limitations (ii) and (iii), the Examiner finds
that the combination of Inamura and Futamoto would have suggested the
requisite properties of the magnetic seed layer and the soft underlayer (id.).
Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

5
Figure 3 of Inamura, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional
view of a write operation performed in a magnetic recording medium:

Figure 3 of Inamura illustrates magnetic head 11, which applies
magnetic field H in main pole 11b for perpendicular penetration through,
inter alia, magnetic seed layer 3 and in-plane penetration through soft
underlayer 2c (id. ¶¶ 41, 42, 63, 64).
The Examiner finds that Inamura discloses crystalline magnetic seed
layer 3, which is ferromagnetically coupled to soft underlayer 2c (Final Act.
4). The Examiner finds Inamura teaches that such ferromagnetically
coupling synchronizes the magnetic direction of seed layer 3 with soft
underlayer 2c (id. at 14). The Examiner finds that although soft underlayer
2c has a magnetic flux in an in-plane direction, Inamura does not disclose
that soft underlayer 2c possesses a net in-plane direction (id. at 4).
The Examiner finds Futamoto discloses that the direction for a layer
with soft magnetism can be in a circumferential direction (id.). Figure 1 of
Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

6
Futamoto, reproduced below, illustrates a cross-sectional schematic diagram
of a perpendicular magnetic recording medium:

Futamoto’s figure 1 illustrates, inter alia, the magnetization
orientations in a perpendicular magnetic recording medium through soft
magnetic films 13 and 15 (Futamoto 3:3–17).
Figure 2 of Futamoto, reproduced below, illustrates the magnetization
orientations in the soft magnetic film at the A–A and the B–B cross-sections:

Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

7

Futamoto’s figure 2 illustrates the magnetization orientations 20 and
21 of the soft magnetic films 15 and 13, respectively, at the A–A and the B–
B cross-sections shown in Futamoto’s figure 1 (id. at 3:24–26).
The Examiner finds Futamoto teaches that setting the magnetization
orientations in the circumferential direction (i.e., the claimed “net in-plane
magnetic anisotropy”; see id. at Fig. 1) leads to noise suppression of a
magnetic recording medium (Final Act. 4).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have configured
Inamura’s soft underlayer 2c to possess Futamoto’s magnetic flux in a
circumferential in-plane direction in order to suppress the magnetic
recording medium’s noise (id.).
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have: (i) matched
the magnetic direction of Watanabe’s magnetic seed layer and soft
underlayer by ferromagnetically coupling these layers, as suggested by
Inamura, and (ii) set the magnetization orientation in Watanabe’s soft
underlayer in the circumferential net in-plane direction to confer desirable
Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

8
noise suppression, as suggested by Futamoto (id. at 5). The Examiner finds
“Watanabe discloses that the seed layer functions in the same way as the soft
underlayer,” and thus the proposed modification would have resulted in the
magnetic seed layer and the soft underlayer possessing the same properties
(id. (citing Watanabe ¶ 30)). Namely, the properties of modified
Watanabe’s magnetic seed layer having a net in-plane magnetic anisotropy
in the same direction as the soft underlayer’s in-plane magnetic anisotropy;
and the magnetic flux traveling in a longitudinal direction in the soft
underlayer and the magnetic seed layer when a magnetic flux is applied from
a magnetic head (Final Act. 4–5).
Appellant argues that Inamura teaches away from the requisite
magnetic flux direction because the applied magnetic field H travels in the
seed layer’s “out-of-plane” direction (Appeal Br. 8–9).
Teaching away requires that a reference “criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed” by Appellant. In re Fulton, 391
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In this case, Inamura does not criticize or
discourage magnetic flux in an in-plane or longitudinal direction through the
seed layer. Inamura does not indicate that “the line of development flowing
from the reference’s disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result
sought by the applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Inamura discloses an embodiment of the invention but does not disclose that
the seed layer must have a perpendicular magnetic flux direction. (Inamura
¶ 32). Rather, the Examiner determines that Inamura’s teachings in
combination with Watanabe’s and Futamoto’s teachings would have
suggested making Watanabe’s seed layer have an in-plane magnetic flux
direction (Final Act. 4-5). The Examiner’s reasoning is based upon
Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

9
Watanabe’s teaching that the seed layer 3 and soft magnetic layer 2
desirably have the same functionality (Final Act. 5). Therefore, we do not
find that Inamura teaches away from the magnetic flux traveling in a
longitudinal direction in the magnetic seed layer.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that “‘it is very
well known in the magnetic recording media (MRM) arts that the magnetic
flux direction in a magnetic soft underlayer is in a longitudinal direction’”
(Reply Br. 2; see Ans. 4).
Appellant, however, admits that Futamoto discloses a magnetization
orientation direction in the soft magnetic layer (Appeal Br. 9). Inamura,
furthermore, explicitly describes that a magnetic field H’s path through soft
underlayer 2c in figure 3 includes an in-plane direction (Inamura ¶ 64).
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not provided any evidentiary
support that Watanabe’s magnetic flux travels in a longitudinal direction
(Reply Br. 2).
We are not persuaded by this argument as the Examiner does not rely
on Watanabe alone for disclosing or suggesting magnetic flux traveling in a
longitudinal direction in the soft underlayer and the magnetic seed layer
(Final Act. 3–5). As the Examiner explains, Inamura depicts magnetic flux
in soft underlayer 2c having an in-plane, i.e., longitudinal flux direction
(Ans. 4; see Inamura Fig. 3). The Examiner finds Watanabe teaches that the
soft underlayer possesses the same function as the seed layer and, thus,
Watanabe’s seed layer is permeable to magnetic flux applied from a
magnetic head (Final Act. 3 (citing Watanabe ¶ 30 (“a soft magnetic
material is more preferably used so that seed layer 3 functions in the same
way as the soft magnetic back layer [2]”) (emphasis added))). The Examiner
Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

10
finds Inamura teaches that a ferromagnetically coupled seed layer to a soft
underlayer matches the net magnetic direction of the seed layer with the soft
underlayer (Final Act. 14; see also Inamura ¶ 42; Fig. 2a (depicting parallel
saturation magnetizations of Ms2 and Ms3 of second soft magnetic layer 2c
and seed layer 3, respectively)). We, therefore, find that the Examiner has
provided sufficient evidentiary support for the conclusion that Watanabe’s
magnetic flux would have traveled in a longitudinal direction (Ans. 4–5).
Appellant contends that Futamoto discloses magnetization orientation
direction in the soft magnetic layer, but not in the magnetic seed layer, as
required by claim 1 (Appeal Br. 9).
Appellant’s argument attacks Futamoto individually instead of
addressing what the combined teachings of the applied prior art would have
suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986)
(“Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references.”). As the Examiner explains, Futamoto’s
circumferential magnetic flux direction in combination with Inamura’s
ferromagnetic coupling would have resulted in a seed layer that is
ferromagnetically coupled to the soft underlayer, with each layer having the
same direction of magnetization orientation (Ans. 5).
Thus, based on a preponderance of evidence in this record, we affirm
this rejection of claims 1, 4–12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 22–25.
2. Claims 2, 26, and 27
With respect to claims 2, 26, and 27, the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions regarding Watanabe, UMN or NANO, Inamura, and Futamoto
Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

11
are located on pages 6–7 of the Final Office Action and pages 5–6 of the
Answer. We select claim 26 as representative of claims 2, 26, and 27 as
each claim recites limitations regarding ranges of a layer’s thickness. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 26 is illustrative (emphasis added):
26. The apparatus of Claim 8, wherein thickness of the
magnetic seed layer is between 1–40 Å or greater than 50 Å
and less than 100 Å, and wherein a thickness of the soft
underlayer is 200 Å.
Appellant argues that the Examiner reversibly erred in determining
that it would have been obvious for the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time
of the invention to have determined the optimum value of a result effective
variable such as layer thickness (Appeal Br. 11).
We are not persuaded by this argument. The 200 Å thickness of the
soft underlayer recited in the claim is overlapped and encompassed by the
range of Watanabe’s soft underlayer thickness of 10 nm or more (see Ans. 6
(citing Watanabe ¶ 29)), which is sufficient to have rendered the claimed
subject matter obvious. Cf. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir.
2003) (holding that a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when
the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior
art).
Appellant argues that even if the distance between Watanabe’s
magnetic head and soft magnetic layer “may be reduced by reducing the
thickness of the magnetic layer, the under layer, etc.” this “does not
necessarily teach or suggest reducing the thickness of the seed layer”
(Appeal Br. 11). Appellant contends that the magnetic seed layer’s claimed
thickness was selected so that the magnetic seed layer with hcp lattice
Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

12
structure and out-of-plane anisotropy “exhibits in-plane magnetic anisotropy
when formed on the soft under layer” (id.).
We are not persuaded by this argument. As explained by the
Examiner, “[t]he seed layer is between the magnetic head and the soft
magnetic layer . . .[and] Watanabe discloses that it is advantageous to have a
small distance between the magnetic head and the [soft underlayer]” (Ans.
5–6). We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s conclusions that “the
thickness of any layers between the head and the . . . [soft underlayer] should
be minimized such that magnetic field would [have] be[en] able to penetrate
to the . . . [soft underlayer]” (id.).
Appellant, furthermore, has not provided any evidence showing the
criticality of the claimed parameters (see Ans. 6).2 We, therefore, agree with
the Examiner that in the absence of any evidence indicating that the claimed
magnetic seed layer’s thickness is critical to the layer exhibiting in-plane
magnetic anisotropy, the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness (id.).

2 Appellant responds that “criticality for the thickness of the magnetic seed
layer” has been provided (Reply Br. 6). However, as the Federal Circuit has
explained,
an applicant may overcome a prima facie case of obviousness
by establishing ‘that the [claimed] range is critical, generally by
showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results
relative to the prior art range.’ That same standard applies
when, as here, the applicant seeks to optimize certain variables
by selecting narrow ranges from broader ranges disclosed in the
prior art. Moreover, the applicant’s showing of unexpected
results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed range.
Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330. On this record, Appellant has made no such
showing.
Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

13
Thus, based on a preponderance of evidence in this record, we affirm
this rejection of claims 2, 26, and 27.
3. Claim 21
With respect to claim 21, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
regarding Watanabe, UMN or NANO, Inamura, and Futamoto are located on
page 12 of the Final Office Action and page 6 of the Answer.
Claim 21 is illustrative (emphasis added):
21. The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein said soft underlayer is
amorphous and comprises CoZrNb, CoZrTa, CoCrRu, FeCo or
FeTaC.
Appellant argues that “Watanabe discloses that the soft magnetic back
layer may be a noncrystalline CoFeTaZr including a total of 8% or more of
Ta, Zr, Nb, B or the like . . . , which does not include any of the claimed
material such as CoZrNb, CoZrTa, CoCrRu, FeCo or FeTaC” (Appeal Br.
11 (citing Watanabe ¶ 29)).
We are not persuaded by this argument. Claim 21 contains the open
transitional term “comprises,” which permits elements and compounds in
addition to those specified to be included in the composition of the claim. In
re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2004) or In re Baxter, 656 F.2d
679, 686 (CCPA 1981). As the Examiner determined, one of ordinary skill
in the art would have recognized that Watanabe’s noncrystalline CoFeTaZr
including a total of 8% or more of Ta, Zr, Nb, B is encompassed by an
amorphous soft underlayer comprising CoZrNb, CoZrTa, CoCrRu, FeCo, or
FeTaC, within the meaning of claim 21 (see Ans. 6).
Thus, based on a preponderance of evidence in this record, we affirm
this rejection of claim 21.
Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

14
B. Rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over the combination of
Watanabe, UMN or NANO, Inamura, Futamoto, and Acharya.
With respect to claim 11, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
regarding Watanabe, UMN or NANO, Inamura, Futamoto, and Acharya are
located on pages 7–8 of the Final Office Action and pages 6–7 of the
Answer.
Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 11 also rely on the same
unpersuasive arguments made regarding claims 1 and 8 in Ground 1 (Appeal
Br. 10; 11–12). As discussed above, we have affirmed the rejection of
claims 1 and 8 in Ground 1. We, therefore, also affirm this rejection of
claim 11.
C. Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21–24, 26, and 27
as unpatentable over the combination of Watanabe, UMN or NANO,
and Girt.
1. Claims 1, 4–10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 22–24
With respect to claim 1, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
regarding Watanabe, UMN or NANO, and Girt are located on pages 8–10 of
the Final Office Action and pages 7–8 of the Answer.
Appellant argues that the Examiner mischaracterizes the Specification
as disclosing that an hcp structure inherently possesses an out-of-plane
magneto-crystalline anisotropy structure (Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 6).
Appellant’s argument is not dispositive as the Examiner relies upon
UMN and NANO for providing evidence that Watanabe’s hcp crystalline
structure would have inherently possessed the disputed property (Ans. 9).3

3 We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the multiple
rejections under different secondary references appear to be attempts at
presenting any possible argument (whether or not they are plausible),
Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

15
We, furthermore, agree with the Examiner that the Specification’s paragraph
14 describes admitted prior art (id. at 7–8; see also Spec. ¶ 14 (disclosing
that “[m]agnetic seed layers with hcp lattice structures were typically not
considered because of their out-of-plane or vertical magneto-crystalline
anisotropy”)).
Appellant argues that Girt’s hcp soft underlayer, which is an
interlayer, cannot possess any of the requisite properties that are associated
with “the magnetic seed layer,” as recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 13). In
particular, Appellant argues that Girt’s interlayer cannot be the same as a
seed layer because: (i) “why in the world would anyone skilled in the art . . .
refer to them differently[?]” and (ii) an interlayer “is in between layers[,]
whereas the seed layer is the foundation to grow other layers on” (Reply Br.
7).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. See In re Danly, 263
F.2d 844, 847 (CCPA 1959) (holding that, “[r]egardless of the terminology
used by the reference, claims are obvious where the prior art discloses or
suggests the claimed structure”). As the Examiner finds, Girt’s hcp soft
underlayer (“SUL”) overlays an amorphous soft magnetic layer (Final Act. 9
(citing Girt’s Fig. 2c); see also Ans. 8 (citing Girt’s Fig. 2d)). Girt,
furthermore, explicitly discloses that the hcp SUL is
a layer that can resume both roles, that of an interlayer, setting
the [0002] growth orientation, and that of SUL. This layer is
called hcp SUL. The preferred requirements for hcp SUL are: 1)
to have hcp crystal structure, 2) to be ferromagnetic, 3) to have

regardless of the teachings of the references” (Appeal Br. 12). Rather, what
the references would have meant to one of ordinary skill in the art, not their
number, is the criterion for determining whether the references would have
rendered a claim obvious. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

16
a large saturation magnetization, . . . [and] 5) to have small in-
plane coercivity . . . .
(Girt ¶ 22) (emphasis added); see also Fritch, 972 F.2d at 1264. We,
therefore, agree with the Examiner that the growth orientation property of
Girt’s hcp SUL, along with the ability to orient the magnetic moment along
the film plane, discloses or suggests “the magnetic seed layer,” as recited in
claim 1 (Ans. 8).
Thus, based on a preponderance of evidence in this record, we affirm
this rejection of claims 1, 4–10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 22–24.
2. Claims 2, 21, 26, and 27
With respect to claims 2, 21, 26, and 27, the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions regarding Watanabe, UMN or NANO, and Girt are located on
pages 10–12 of the Final Office Action.
Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 2, 21, 26, and 27 also rely on
the same unpersuasive arguments made regarding these claims in Ground 1
(Appeal Br. 13). As discussed above, we have affirmed the rejection of
claims 2, 21, 26, and 27 in Ground 1. We, therefore, also affirm this
rejection of claims 2, 21, 26, and 27.
D. Rejection of claims 2, 9, 10, and 25–27 as unpatentable over the
combination of Watanabe, UMN or NANO, Girt, and Inamura.
With respect to claims 2, 9, 10, and 25–27, the Examiner’s findings
and conclusions regarding Watanabe, UMN or NANO, Girt, and Inamura
are located on page 12 of the Final Office Action.
Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 2, 9, 10, and 25–27 also rely
on the same unpersuasive arguments made regarding claims 2, 26, and 27 in
Ground 1 and claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12, 14, 16, 17, 19, 21–24, 26, and 27 in
Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

17
Ground 3 (Appeal Br. 13–14). As discussed above, we have affirmed the
rejection of claims 2, 26, and 27 in Ground 1 and claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12, 14,
16, 17, 19, 21–24, 26, and 27 in Ground 3. We, therefore, also affirm this
rejection of claims 2, 9, 10, and 25–27.
E. Rejection of claim 11 as unpatentable over the combination of
Watanabe, UMN or NANO, Girt, and Acharya.
With respect to claim 11, the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
regarding Watanabe, UMN or NANO, Girt, and Acharya are located on page
12–13 of the Final Office Action.
Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 11 also rely on the same
unpersuasive arguments made regarding claims 1 and 8 in Ground 3 (Appeal
Br. 10; 11–12). As discussed above, we have affirmed the rejection of
claims 1 and 8 in Ground 3. We, therefore, also affirm this rejection of
claim 11.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–10,
12, 14, 16,
17, 19, 21–
27
103(a)
Watanabe, UMN,
NANO, Inamura,
Futamoto
1, 2, 4–10,
12, 14, 16,
17, 19, 21–
27

11 103(a)
Watanabe, UMN,
NANO, Inamura,
Futamoto, Acharya
11
1, 2, 4–10,
12, 14, 16,
17, 19, 21–
24, 26, 27
103(a) Watanabe, UMN, NANO, Girt
1, 2, 4–10,
12, 14, 16,
17, 19, 21–
24, 26, 27

Appeal 2019-004916
Application 13/632,154

18
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2, 9, 10,
25–27 103(a)
Watanabe, UMN,
NANO, Girt,
Inamura
2, 9, 10, 25–
27
11 103(a)
Watanabe, UMN,
NANO, Girt,
Acharya
11
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–12,
14, 16, 17,
19, 21–27

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).
AFFIRMED