Appeal No. 1998-0200
Application No. 08/698,193
thereof is between 1.1 and 25.” However, such an interpretation of Claim 16 cannot be harmonized
with the drawings (the steps shown in Figures 9-12) or the written description of the process. (See
specification, page 5, lines 6 through 9, “the intermediate layer 21 has a relative permeability F of 5.
r
The intermediate layer 21...is formed by means of laser ablation or MO-CVD of an oxidic soft-
magnetic material....,” and page 6, lines 3 through 7, “[t]he intermediate layer 121, which is formed
from an oxidic soft-magnetic material...is directly provided on the magnetically well-conducting flux-
guiding element 117a....”)
We thus consider the scope of Claim 16 (and depending Claim 17) to be indeterminate, and
therefore conclude that the claims fail to pass muster under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
CONCLUSION
All rejections of Claims 2-6, 9-12, and 15-17 are reversed.
Claims 16 and 17 are newly rejected by us under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR § 1.196(b)(amended
effective Dec. 1, 1997, by final rule notice, 62 Fed. Reg. 53,131, 53,197 (Oct. 10, 1997), 1203 Off.
Gaz. Pat. & Trademark Office 63, 122 (Oct. 21, 1997)). 37 CFR § 1.196(b) provides that, "A new
ground of rejection shall not be considered final for purposes of judicial review."
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007