Appeal No. 2001-2200
Application No. 09/286,328
Claims 1-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite.
Claims 8-13 and 20-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
based on a disclosure which is not enabling.
Claims 34-36 and 43-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102, as being
anticipated by appellants' admitted prior art.
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Jul. 10, 2000) and the Examiner's Answer
(mailed Jan. 17, 2001) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (filed
Dec. 11, 2000) and the Reply Brief (filed Mar. 19, 2001) for appellants' position with
respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
‘917 patent disclosure
As set forth in the Background of the Invention (particularly columns 3 to 5) of
the '917 patent, the inventors endeavored to improve over the conventional surface
acoustic wave filter structure shown in "PRIOR ART" Figure 1. The heat treatment
required in forming the device, carried out at 400° C, was thought to be detrimental by
increasing the grain size of the aluminum (Al), leading to a shorter than expected life for
the filter. In particular, appellants wished to minimize dynamic stress migration of the
Al, caused by internal stress resulting from the acoustic surface wave propagation. A
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007