Appeal No. 2005-0282
Application No. 09/755,991
19 and 20 which interact with signals 16 and 17 and that “[a]t the time the interaction is
done, the input signals of transducers 19 and 20 are effectively two different signals
having two different frequencies and inherently different range of operational or
communication frequencies, also known as bandwidths” (answer-page 7). However,
there is nothing within the four corners of Filipov, and the examiner has pointed to
nothing, that suggests that the signals 21 and 22 are “effectively two different signals
having two different frequencies and inherently different range of operational or
communication frequencies,” as contended by the examiner. There is nothing, in
Filipov, to suggest that any two signals, whether they be signals 16, 17, or signals 21,
22, are of different band frequencies filtered by different SAW circuits.
We agree with appellants, at page 11 of the brief, that Filipov’s SAW device 18
does not filter first and second signals in respective first and second bands of
communication frequencies and that transducers 19 and 20 do not filter any signals,
but, rather, merely convert signals 21 and 22 to surface waves on the SAW device 18.
Signals 21 and 22 interact with the two beams 16 and 17 to shift them up in frequency,
as indicated at column 6, lines 46-57, of Filipov.
Since the examiner has not convincingly set forth a case as to why the proposed
combination of references would have resulted in a first SAW circuit that filters a first
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007