Appeal No. 95-3742
Application 08/176,287
Rejection would not have resulted in
the instant claimed invention.
Indeed, because of the above-noted
differences between the device of
Stajcer and a voltage-controlled
oscillator, a person having ordinary
skill in the art would not have been
taught that Stajcer’s tuning pads
would have any use in a voltage-
controlled oscillator like that of the
appellant’s admitted prior art. As a
consequence, the references provide no
motivation to make the combination
suggested in the Final Rejection.
The Final Rejection, at the
bottom of page 2, argues that if it
were desired to ground one end of
strip line L1 of Fig. 1 of the instant
application, parallel trimming stubs
would be the logical choice. However,
because the Final Rejection includes
no showing that a person having
ordinary skill in the art would have
desired to ground one end of strip
line L1, this argument rests on
impermissible hindsight. In addition,
even if a person having ordinary skill
in the art so desired, neither of the
applied references teaches or suggests
even the possibility of arranging
trimming stubs in parallel with a
microstrip line serving as a
resonator.
The penultimate sentence in appellant’s conclusion is in
error because Figure 2 of the admitted prior art shows a
grounded microstrip line L1. The ultimate sentence in
appellant’s conclusion is, however, correct because “neither
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007