Appeal No. 1999-0863
Application 08/674,727
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification." In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266,
23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon,
733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The
Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness as to limitations (1), (2), and (3); therefore, it
is not necessary to address the other deficiencies in the
Examiner's rejections. The obviousness rejections of claims
10 and 11 over Ehata, Ruile, and Mitchell are reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claims 17-19
Appellant argues that Ehata, Ruile, Mitchell, and
Takema fail to teach or suggest "a filter which includes first
and second longitudinal resonators each comprising
interdigital electrodes where at least one of the electrodes
is electrically shorted, as required in claims 17 and 21 and
illustrated in Figure 3A (2A and 2B)" (Br15: Br17).
The Examiner's position is that Ehata, Ruile, and
Mitchell each show "'dummy' electrodes, which are their
respective reflector electrodes" (FR6). Appellant does not
address this finding in the brief or reply brief.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007