Appeal No. 96-2224
Application No. 08/047,498
The examiner does not specifically address the
limitations of claim 3, but rather, responds that two main
concepts of appellants’ invention are taught by Kane and that
equivalent results to the invention of claim 3 are obtained by
the Kane device [answer, pages 6-9]. Based on the record
before us, we agree with appellants that the examiner has not
demonstrated that the specific structure recited in claim 3
would have been obvious to the artisan within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the teachings of Kane and
Takahashi.
Although Kane does suggest that distributed constant
lines having first and second central sections can be used to
perform tuning amplification, tuning oscillation and mixing,
we fail to see how the specific structure of claim 3 results
from the mere observation of the examiner that certain
concepts of appellants’ invention are also present in Kane.
Claim 3 is not simply directed to an inventive concept, but
rather, recites a specific interconnection of circuitry which
is not suggested by the collective teachings of Kane and
Takahashi. Whether equivalent results are obtained by the
modified Kane device is not an appropriate consideration in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007