Appeal No. 1998-1467
Application 08/598,137
using a different pitch for inter-digital electrodes than for reflector electrodes for SAW resonators
connected in series, and even if Hikita were modified with Takagi, the combination would fail to teach
or suggest keeping the pitch between reflector electrodes the same as the pitch between inter-digital
electrodes for SAW resonators connected in parallel, as required by representative claim 9 on appeal.
Appellants make the same argument with respect to Hickernell, as opposed to Takagi (Reply Brief,
page 6). We agree, and we find that this feature of using different pitch between reflector and inter-
digital electrodes for series connected SAW resonators while using the same pitch for parallel
connected SAW resonators is neither taught nor would have been suggested by Takagi, Hickernell, or
Hikita, taken singly or in any combination thereof. Although we agree with the examiner that either
Takagi or Hicknell teach employing different pitches between reflector electrodes and inter-digital
electrodes, we find that either reference combined with Hikita fails to fairly teach or suggest that a
different pitch be used between series connected SAW resonators and the same pitch be used between
parallel connected SAW resonators. Thus, we are also in agreement with appellants (Brief, page 4)
that the examiner has failed to explain why one would selectively employ the different pitch feature of
either Takagi or Hickernell in the Hikita device, as required by representative claim 9 on appeal. As
stated by appellants, "there is no teaching as to why one would use same pitch resonators in parallel but
not in the [sic] series" (Reply Brief, page 6).
With respect to claim 14, we agree with appellants (Brief, page 8 and 11 to 12; Reply Brief,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007