Appeal No. 2004-0642
Application No. 09/635,098
to Paper No. 14). We reverse this rejection essentially for the
reasons stated in the Brief, Reply Brief, and for those reasons set
forth below.
OPINION
The examiner finds that Sasaki discloses all of the
limitations of claim 16 on appeal except that the conductors are
not “wound in a coil [sic, coiled] manner.” Paper No. 14, page 3.
Therefore, the examiner applies Kato for the teaching of embedding
a closely wound coil in the magnetic body of a chip inductor
(id.).3 From these findings, the examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to use the
coil design of Kato for the conductors of Sasaki “for the purpose
of enhancing the inductance of the inductor.” Id. We disagree.
As correctly argued by appellants (Brief, pages 6-7), Sasaki
teaches the desire to produce a conductor with a small inductance
component by using a linear conductor instead of a coil-formed
conductor, thus yielding a noise filter with improved properties.4
3We also note that appellants disclose that it was
conventional to wind a conducting wire around a bar of magnetic
material “in a coiled manner.” Specification, page 1, ll. 10-20.
4See Paragraph [0034] of the machine translation, which is
similar to appellants’ translation submitted at page 6 of the
Brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007