Appeal No. 96-2224
Application No. 08/047,498
Kane would meet the three central conductors as recited in
claim 3. Finally, the examiner notes that this modification
would not teach the impedance elements as recited in claim 3.
Takahashi is cited as a teaching of the connection of
impedances as claimed. The examiner concludes that the Kane
device as obviously modified by Takahashi results in the
claimed invention [answer, pages 3-4].
Appellants argue that Kane does not teach the
provision of a balanced input from tuning amplifier device 335
to mixer device 337 [Figure 28]. Appellants also argue that
Kane suggests the use of transformer coils for the unbalanced
to balanced mode converter which is expressly against the
teachings of the present invention. It is further argued that
the relationship of the distributed constant tuning circuit
and the imbalance-balance conversion circuit using a
distributed constant line with three central sections as
recited in claim 3 is simply not shown or suggested in Kane.
Finally, appellants argue that the conventional balun of
Takahashi is contrary to the teachings of the present
invention, and Takahashi balances the oscillator signal rather
than the tuning amplifier signal [brief, pages 4-8].
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007