Appeal No. 95-3742
Application 08/176,287
of the applied references teaches or suggests even the
possibility of arranging trimming stubs in parallel with a
microstrip line serving as a resonator.” Appellant’s
conclusion concerning the trimming stubs or tuning pads 28 in
Stajcer is correct because the tuning pads 28 “are located
adjacent to the metalization 24" (column 2, lines 10 and 11)
to maximize the output power from the drain 22 (column 4,
lines 11 through 13), and not to adjust an oscillation
frequency.
In summary, it is apparent that the only teaching or
suggestion of a grounded microstrip resonator with a parallel
trimming stub is appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention,
and such teachings are not available to the examiner in the
formulation of a prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, the
obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 4 through 6 is reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 and 4
through 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007