Appeal No. 96-1191
Application 08/344,624
do not extend from the metal plate
[brief, pages 5-6].
The examiner asserts that the oscillator is not part of the
invention and is merely a functional use of the invention
which is not given any patentable weight [answer, pages 3-5].
The examiner’s position is without merit. Independent
claims 1 and 3 clearly recite that the integrated circuit/chip
is connected to an oscillator, and these claims also clearly
recite specific connections involving the input and output
terminals/electrodes of the oscillator. We fail to see how
the device of Kadowaki, which discloses no oscillator, can
fully meet the recitations of claims 1 and 3. It was an error
for the
examiner to treat the oscillator recitations as
nondistinguishing limitations in the claim. Therefore, we do
not sustain the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1
and 3 as anticipated by Kadowaki. It necessarily follows that
we also do not sustain this rejection of any of the dependent
claims as well.
We now consider the rejection of claims 1-11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Kadowaki.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007