Appeal No. 2005-0282
Application No. 09/755,991
under §103, the examiner must produce a factual basis supported by a teaching in a
prior art reference or shown to be common knowledge of unquestionable
demonstration. Our reviewing court requires this evidence in order to establish a prima
facie case. In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1471-72, 223 USPQ 785, 787-88 (Fed. Cir.
1984). The examiner may satisfy his/her burden only by showing some objective
teaching in the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in
the art would lead the individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references. In
re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
In applying the references to the instant claims, the examiner describes the
teachings of the various references. Takado is said to disclose a module 10,
comprising a hermetically-sealable shell 20 having first and second terminal sets 35a,
and a lid 21, coupled to the shell and forming an enclosure of a SAW circuit.
Ikata is said to teach a duplexer having a first SAW circuit 33a, located within a
shell and couplable to a first terminal set; and a second SAW circuit 33b located within
the shell and couplable to a second terminal set, for the purpose of providing a multi-
level ceramic package with filter chips having different central frequencies.
Filipov is said to teach the construction of an acousto-optic time-integrating
correlator 10 having a SAW device 18, with two transducers 19 and 20, that filters a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007