Appeal 2007-0240
Application 10/602,462
discussion of their own prior art figures 1 and 2, specification pages 1 and 2
indicated at page 2, lines 9 through 16 that a high aspect ratio (Y/X) was
desirable in the art “as the coil resistant decreases with increasing aspect
ratio,” as noted at lines 10 and 11. This would have been an obvious
enhancement to the teachings in Rose which does achieve low resistance of
coil structures in accordance with the title of his invention and the
advantages represented, for example, at the end of the Abstract of that
patent. We recognize that one of the major teachings regarding the upper
conductors’ 20b/22b in Rose with respect to the lower conductors’ 20a/22a
is that the upper conductors are wider as depicted in figure 3. The vertical
thickness of Rose’s upper conductors would not necessarily have to be
increased beyond the depiction shown as long as the aspect ratio advantages
taught by the admitted prior art and Hsiao would have been achieved. Thus,
it is not the actual height of the vertical distance of the conductors but the
ratio that is significant to achieving the additional advantageous results.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
various claims on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013