Appeal No. 1997-2046 Page 12 Application No. 08/059,350 ferromagnetic layer ...; wherein said at least one ferromagnetic layer comprises a plurality of ferromagnetic sub-layers which are stacked upon one another and form said ferromagnetic layer and have no electrically conductive material between them"; or "ferromagnetic layers each including a plurality of ferromagnetic ribbons ...." The examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the rejections of claims 40-55, 63, 65- 75, and 77-85 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We next address claim 56. Claim 56 Recognizing that Hasegawa, Takahashi, Yoshizawa, and Soohoo fail to have suggested two-dimensional division, the examiner concludes, "[d]ividing a device into a plurality of portions ... is obvious and a matter of design choice." (Examiner's Answer at 8.) The appellants argue, "[t]he office action has not asserted that the prior art discloses or suggest a ferromagnetic layer that is two-dimensionally divided into a plurality of portions." (Appeal Br. at 34.)Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007