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 100Fm
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007