Appeal No. 1999-0863
Application 08/674,727
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The dispositive issue is whether Ehata, Ruile, and
Mitchell teach or suggest the following functional limitations
of claim 10: (1) "said first and second longitudinal mode
coupling type resonators are arranged to match a longitudinal
mode resonation of an even symmetric mode and a longitudinal
mode resonation of an odd symmetric mode"; (2) "said first
longitudinal mode coupling type resonator being arranged to
generate two longitudinal mode resonations"; and (3) "said
second longitudinal mode coupling type resonator being
arranged to generate two longitudinal mode resonations."
The Examiner states (FR3; FR4; FR5):
It is not clear that [Ehata's, Ruile's, or Mitchell's]
first and second longitudinal mode coupling type
resonators are arranged to match a longitudinal mode
resonation of an even symmetric mode and a longitudinal
mode resonation of an odd symmetric mode. The Applicants
note that two longitudinal mode resonances are
"accomplished by appropriately selecting the number of
IDT pairs, the longitudinal mutual interval between the
IDT electrodes and the longitudinal distance between the
IDT and the reflector". It would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to arrange [Ehata's or Ruiles' or Mitchell's]
first and second longitudinal mode coupling type
resonators so that they are arranged to match a
longitudinal mode resonation of an even symmetric mode
and a longitudinal mode resonation of an odd symmetric
mode since it has been held that rearranging parts of an
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007