Appeal No. 2005-0282
Application No. 09/755,991
possessed the artisan to seek a multi-layer ceramic package with filter chips filtering two
different signals, and having different central frequencies? What is it, in the teachings of
any of the references, or their combination, that would have indicated to the artisan that
such a result was desirable? The examiner does not expressly say.
Moreover, even if such a combination would have been made and the artisan
had some motivation for doing so, the examiner’s rejection would still fail. Independent
claim 1, as well as independent claim 15, recites first and second SAW circuits. The
first SAW circuit filters a first signal in a first band of communication frequencies, while
the second SAW circuit filters a second signal in a second band of communication
frequencies. The examiner relies on Filipov for the teaching of this limitation, effectively
admitting that neither Takado nor Ikata disclose or suggest this specific claim limitation.
Therefore, if Filipov does not contain a disclosure or suggestion of such filtering of first
and second signals in first and second bands of communication frequencies,
respectively, the rejection must fail from the outset.
We have reviewed the applied references, and we have paid special attention to
Filipov for a teaching of filtering of first and second signals in first and second bands of
communication frequencies, respectively, and we can find no such teaching or
suggestion. The examiner contends that Filipov’s SAW device 18 contains transducers
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007