Appeal No. 2005-0282
Application No. 09/755,991
first signal 21 in a first band of communication frequencies and a second signal 22 in a
second band of communications frequencies.
The examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious “to use the
transducers disclosed by FILIPOV...with the duplexer arrangement disclosed by
IKATA...on the module disclosed by TAKADO for the purpose of providing a multi-layer
ceramic package with filter chips filtering two different signals, and having different
central frequencies” (answer-page 4).
In our view, the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter of independent claim 1. While the
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious “to use the transducers disclosed
by FILIPOV...with the duplexer arrangement disclosed by IKATA...on the module
disclosed by TAKADO for the purpose of providing a multi-layer ceramic package with
filter chips filtering two different signals, and having different central frequencies,” the
examiner provides no supporting basis for this conclusion. The examiner provides no
explanation as to what, in the references or in the knowledge of skilled artisans, would
have led the artisan to make the combination. The examiner says it would have been
for the “purpose of providing a multi-layer ceramic package with filter chips filtering two
different signals, and having different central frequencies,” but what would have
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007