Appeal No. 95-3742
Application 08/176,287
Clams 1 and 4 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over admitted prior art Figures 2
and 3 in view of Stajcer.
Reference is made to the final rejection, the brief 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 and
4 through 6.
Stajcer discloses (column 2, lines 10 and 11) a plurality
of tuning pads 28 located adjacent to metalization 24 (Figure
2). Based upon this disclosure in Stajcer, the examiner
contends (final rejection, pages 2 and 3) that:
[I]t would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention was
made to use trimming stubs in
parallel with strip line L1
[admitted prior art Figure 3]
instead of in series, because the
two ways of providing trimming
stubs are functional equivalents.
Further, if it was desired to
ground one end of strip line L1,
as shown in applicant’s Fig. 1,
then parallel trimming stubs
would be the logical choice since
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007