Appeal No. 1999-2077 Page 3
Application No. 08/589,251
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied Lemelson reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. For the reasons which follow, we cannot sustain
either of the examiner’s rejections.
Each of claims 1 and 10 expressly calls for a magnetic
core material deposited into a cavity in a non-magnetic1
substrate. Lemelson discloses an apparatus for fabricating
products such as electronic circuits or devices requiring the
selective and controlled deposition of predetermined amounts
of doping materials, conducting and semi-conducting materials
as well as insulating or isolating materials in a manner to
form a desired composite electrical device or circuit (col. 1,
lines 58-65). An example of a product fabricated with the
disclosed apparatus is a work member comprising a base 82
having an upper stratum 84 of material such as semi-conducting
material, metal or insulating material deposited thereon and a
Consistent with appellant’s underlying disclosure, we understand a1
“cavity” as used in the claims to be a hollowed out recess in the substrate.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007