Appeal No. 97-3453 Page 4
Application No. 08/475,374
reduce the second harmonic distortion to be -25 dB
or lower.
The references relied on by the patent examiner in
rejecting the claims follow:
Tin 4,280,153 Jul. 21,
1981
Ottesen et al. (Ottesen) 5,301,080 Apr.
5, 1994
(filed Dec. 31,
1992).
Claims 2, 11, 13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious over admitted prior art (Admission) in view
of Ottesen. (Final Rejection at 5.) Claims 5, 12, and 14
stand rejected under § 103 as obvious over Admission in view
of Ottesen further in view of Tin. (Id. at 6.) Claim 15
also stands provisionally rejected under the doctrine of
obviousness-type double patenting in view of claim 15 of
Application Serial No. 08/475,062. (Id. at 4.) Rather than
repeat the arguments of the appellants or examiner in toto, we
refer the reader to the supplemental appeal brief and the
examiner’s answer for the respective details thereof.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007