Appeal No. 95-3001
Application No. 08/195,844
Claims 1 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Yoshida, the Japanese patent publication
or Yoshinaga.
Reference is made to the brief, the final rejection (paper
number 14), and the answer for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before
us, and we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 5.
According to the examiner (paper number 14):
Each reference teaches the claimed piezoelectric
resonance device except for the specific width of the
capacitor dielectric substrate. The size of the
dielectric and the electrode area are functions of the
desired properties of the capacitor; with the values
dictated by job requirements. Selecting optimum values
for a known device has long been held to be within the
skill expected of the routineer, and therefore a
manipulation that would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Note that Yoshida (fig. 1)
shows the capacitor equal in width to the cup terminal
width, while Japan (figs. 2-4) shows the capacitor
substrate is wider than the common (ground) terminal.
Appellant argues (Brief, page 10) that “[t]he Yoshida patent
at best discloses matching the second dimension of dielectric
plate 8a to that of cup portions 2a and 3a,” “[t]he Yoshinaga
patent discloses forming the second dimension of the capacitor
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007