Appeal No. 1998-0437
Application No. 08/603,523
Appellant argues (Brief, page 12) that Satoh only teaches
a fixed number of reflective elements. We agree. As
indicated supra, the products are still the same.
Appellant also argues (Brief, page 12) that Satoh is
silent with respect to the thickness of metallization.
Appellant acknowledges (Brief, page 13) that Satoh discloses
material thickness. Furthermore, the claimed invention does
not specifically claim thickness of metallization. Therefore,
appellant’s argument concerning thickness is not persuasive.
We note that the coupling coefficient is the only
variable term that must be supplied in appellant’s claims on
appeal. Appellant’s coupling coefficient of the substrate
material (Specification, pages 7 and 8) is “tabulated in a
variety of textbooks related to piezoelectric materials.”
Satoh discloses a coupling coefficient of a substrate material
and material thickness (column 14, lines 6-14).
Appellant additionally argues (Brief, page 13) that Satoh
teaches away from the limitations of appellant’s claims.
Specifically, appellant argues that Satoh teaches only a fixed
number of reflection elements. The examiner responds (Answer,
page 6) that simply because the claims encompass a broader
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007