Appeal No. 2001-1444
Application No. 08/994,706
equalization, i.e., a 1.1 ratio of load resistance to
characteristic impedance, the explicit disclosure of Yamashita
directs the reader away from such impedance equalization. For
example, Yamashita, at column 10, lines 63-65, states “ . . . it
is effective to set the ratio " of the resistance RL to the
characteristic impedance ZO to the range of from 4.5 to 5.0
times.”
In view of the above discussion, since all of the
limitations of independent claim 18 are not taught or suggested
by the Yamashita reference, the Examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 18, as well as claims 19,
20, 22, and 23 dependent thereon, is not sustained.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s separate
obviousness rejection of appealed claims 18-20, 22, and 23 based
on Yamamura, we do not sustain this rejection as well. As with
the rejection based on Yamashita discussed supra, the
underpinnings of the Examiner’s position rest on the supposition
that, although Yamamura does not specifically disclose the
equalization of impedances, it is well known that impedances
should be equalized for maximum damping. It is our view,
however, that, similar to the factual situation involving
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007