Appeal No. 1997-2046 Page 16
Application No. 08/059,350
...." (Id. at 7-8.) The appellants argue that the examiner
"does not even assert that those limitations are obvious to
provide in the provide [sic] in the combinational [sic]
structure." (Reply Br. at 16.)
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the game is
the claim ....’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of
Claims--American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. &
Copyright L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Here, claims 57-62 and 76
each specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
"[a] planar inductor having an inductance, comprising: at
least one ferromagnetic layer, each ferromagnetic layer having
a saturation magnetization that is greater than 1OkG and a
thickness of less than 100 microns ...." Accordingly, the
limitations require a ferromagnetic layer of a planar inductor
having a saturation magnetization greater than 1O kG and a
thickness less than 100 Fm.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007