Appeal No. 96-1191
Application 08/344,624
have been an obvious design choice to connect an oscillator to
the Kadowaki device [answer, pages 3-4].
We will not concern ourselves with whether the
examiner’s rejection meets the legal threshold for a prima
facie case of obviousness because the rejection would fail on
the merits in any case. The examiner’s bald conclusion that
it would have been obvious to connect an oscillator to the
Kadowaki device lacks any support on this record. We agree
with appellant that the teachings of Kadowaki are not
automatically applicable to an oscillator connection, and even
if an oscillator were connected to the leads in Kadowaki, the
invention of claims 1 and 3 would not necessarily result.
Kadowaki is concerned with creating a coplanar high frequency
transmission path between a pair of ground leads and a single
signal lead. The signal leads in Kadowaki are not
distinguished as being input or output leads so that it is not
clear that the connections of the input and output
terminals/electrodes of claims 1 and 3 would have been obvious
in view of the Kadowaki teachings. Therefore, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 3 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the teachings of Kadowaki.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007