Appeal No. 95-1673
Application 08/039,552
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,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007