Appeal No. 1998-1467
Application 08/598,137
page 6) that neither Takagi nor Hickernell teach or suggest the relationship between pitches as in claim
14 on appeal, specifically, that the pitch between series connected inter-digital electrodes (SIDT) is less
than the pitch between series connected reflector electrodes (SREF), which is equal to the pitch
between parallel connected reflector electrodes (PREF), which in turn is less than the pitch between
parallel connected inter-digital electrodes (PIDT) (that is, the formula found at the last line of claim 14
on appeal). We are also in agreement with appellants (Reply Brief, page 5) that there is no disclosure
in any of the applied references of using three different pitches between electrodes as required by the
equation at the last line of claim 14 on appeal. Therefore, we cannot agree with the examiner (Answer,
pages 4 to 8) that one of ordinary skill in the art looking at the SAW resonator structure of either
Takagi or Hickernell would have been motivated to employ the ladder filter of Hikita in order to
achieve the resonator-type SAW filter having varying pitches between series and parallel connected
reflector and inter-digital electrodes as recited in appellants’ claims 9 to 14 on appeal.
Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 9 to 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 9 to 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Takagi in
view of Hikita is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007