Appeal No. 1998-1467
Application 08/598,137
Claims 9 to 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Takagi in view of Hikita.
Claims 9 to 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Hickernell in view of Hikita.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellants and the examiner, reference is made to the Briefs
and the Answer for the respective details thereof.
OPINION
For the reasons generally set forth by appellants in the Reply Brief (pages 4 to 6), and for the
reasons which follow, we will reverse the rejections of claims 9 to 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In
reaching our conclusion on the issues raised in this appeal, we have carefully considered appellants’
specification and claims, the applied prior art, and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we are in general agreement with appellants that the
applied references would neither have taught nor suggested the resonator-type SAW filter of
appellants’ claims 9 to 14 on appeal. For the reasons which follow, we will reverse the decisions of the
examiner rejecting claims 9 to 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over either of Takagi, or Hickernell, in view
of Hikita.
With respect to claims 9 to 13, appellants argue (Brief, page 4) that even if Takagi teaches
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007