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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007