Lee International

The subject invention relates to a memory cell and a memory array, and the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) issued a Decision of Refusal of Amendment asserting that a new ground for inventive step rejection was raised based on the amendment filed along with a request for continued examination.  Further, a conclusive Final Rejection was also issued by asserting that the invention in the pre-amended claims lacks an inventive step over a combination of the prior art references cited in a prior Final Rejection.  However, LEE INTERNATIONAL appealed the Decision of Refusal of Amendment and the conclusive Final Rejection to the IPTAB.  The IPTAB was persuaded by LEE INTERNATIONAL’s arguments that the issuance of the Decision of Refusal of Amendment based on Cited Reference 7 was improper, and that the invention in the subject application should be determined to have the technical significance based on the differences of the claimed invention in terms of the feature and effect from Cited References 1-6.  Accordingly, the IPTAB issued a trial decision canceling the Decision of Refusal of Amendment and reversing the conclusive Final Rejection on April 19, 2021, and remanded the subject application to the examination bureau of KIPO. 

The subject invention is characterized by arranging a magnetic moment of a free layer to be substantially aligned with a long axis of an elliptically shaped bit, while arranging a magnetic moment of a reference layer to be disposed at an angle different from the long axis, thereby eliminating the incubation time and enhancing the switching efficiency and coherency.  The KIPO examiner determined in the Decision of Refusal of Amendment that said characteristic feature of the invention is disclosed in Cited Reference 7.  However, i) the magnetic moment of the reference layer being disposed at a different angle from the long axis of the elliptically shaped bit is not disclosed in Cited Reference 7, and ii) the effect of eliminating the incubation time and enhancing the switching efficiency and coherency resulting from said feature of the claimed invention could not have been anticipated from Cited Reference 7.  Based on the above, LEE INTERNATIONAL appealed the conclusive Final Rejection to the IPTAB to argue the impropriety of the Decision of Refusal of Amendment and the conclusive Final Rejection.  During the appeal, LEE INTERNATIONAL explained on the characteristic technical feature of the claimed invention and the effect produced therefrom in details in a technical hearing, and elaborated on the differences between the claimed invention and Cited Reference 7.  More specifically, LEE INTERNATIONAL explained that contrary to the examiner’s assertions, the features related to the magnetization directions of a fixed layer and a free layer in Cited Reference 7 are different from the feature of the magnetic moment of the reference layer being disposed at a different angle from the long axis of the elliptically shaped bit in the claimed invention.  Further, LEE INTERNATIONAL emphasized that based on such differences, the effect unanticipated from Cited Reference 7 can be obtained.  In addition, LEE INTERNATIONAL argued that the claimed invention could not have been easily conceived from a combination of Cited References 1-6.  Specifically, LEE INTERNATIONAL explained that the feature of arranging the magnetic moment of the free layer to be substantially aligned with the long axis of the elliptically shaped bit, while arranging the magnetic moment of the reference layer to be disposed at a different angle from the elliptically shaped bit in the claimed invention is also not disclosed in Cited Reference 1.  Furthermore, considering the disclosures of Cited Reference 1, making a design modification to a magnetic moment of a free layer in Cited Reference 1 to be substantially aligned with the long axis of the elliptically shaped bit would teach away from the objective of Cited Reference 1.  In this regard, the IPTAB was persuaded by LEE INTERNATIONAL’s arguments and determined that the Decision of Refusal of Amendment based on Cited Reference 7 was improper.  Accordingly, the IPTAB issued the trial decision that the invention in the subject application has an inventive step over Cited References 1-6. 

This case is an example illustrating that even if a KIPO examiner initially denies the patentability of a claimed invention, such decision may be overcome by: i) precisely demonstrating a difference between the claimed invention and prior art in terms of the technical feature and effect, and ii) arguing that it would be difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art to make a design modification to the feature of the claimed invention in view of the objective of prior art.