Appeal No. 1997-2046 Page 15 Application No. 08/059,350 In view of the examiner’s unsubstantiated, conclusory opinion, we are not persuaded that teachings from the prior art would have suggested the limitations of "at least one ferromagnetic layer stacked on said planar inductance element; where said ferromagnetic layer is two-dimensionally divided into a plurality of ferromagnetic portions with no intervening structures between the portion.” The examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We next, and last, address claims 57-62 and 76. Claims 57-62 and 76 Recognizing that Hasegawa and Takahashi fail to have suggested a saturation magnetization greater than 1O kG or a thickness less than 100 Fm, the examiner concludes, "[i]t would have obvious for Hasegawa et al. to have layers with a saturation magnetization of not less than 10KG as taught by Soohoo." (Examiner's Answer at 8.) He further concludes, "[s]ince Yoshizawa et al. ... have such layers of less than 100Fm (example 35) used for inductor coils, it would have been obvious for Hasegawa et al. to have layers of less than 100FmPage: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007