Appeal No. 2000-1984
Application No. 08/565,775
With regard to claim 2, appellants argue that Schweizerhof
does not show a "hollow" window frame that is "stuck onto the
carrier" wherein the window frame lies "entirely within the
border of the flat carrier." We disagree. The "window" in
Schweizerhof is element 10, not 15, as argued by appellants at
page 17 of the principal brief. This window is clearly "hollow,"
as claimed. Further, we agree with the examiner that it is
"stuck" onto the carrier in the sense that it does not fall off
the carrier. If "stuck" has some special meaning, it is not
pointed out by appellants nor does the claim indicate any such
meaning. Clearly, from Figure 2 of the reference, the window 10
is "entirely within the border" of the carrier, which is
relatively flat.
Appellants argue that with respect to claims 5 and 7-10,
which recite that at least one of insulant window alignment,
insulant window contour, ferromagnetic material layer height and
ferromagnetic material composition is chosen so as to determine
at least one coil parameter including at least one of inductance
and coupling of the spiral-shaped coil, the examiner has made a
self-serving allegation that "every inductor has height, contour,
shape, material, etc. chosen to achieve a specific inductance."
However, we agree with the examiner that, based on the breadth of
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007