Appeal No. 2005-1194
Application No. 10/110,115
We agree with the examiner’s assessment of the teachings of
Kishimoto. The first resonator structure includes the conductive
bar pattern (28, 14) mounted on the circular printed circuit
board 26, and the second resonator structure includes the
circular conductive pattern 32 mounted on the circular printed
circuit board 30. According to appellants’ disclosure
(specification, page 6, lines 29 through 33), each of their
resonators comprises a printed circuit board with a metallization
applied thereon. Thus, we find that the resonators disclosed by
Kishimoto do not differ from the disclosed and claimed
resonators. To the extent that the disclosed and claimed
resonators are coplanar1, the resonators in Kishimoto are
coplanar.
In summary, the anticipation rejection of claims 12 through
19 is sustained.
The obviousness rejection of claim 20 is sustained because
appellants have not presented any patentability arguments for
this claim apart from the arguments presented for claim 12.
1 The disclosed and claimed resonators are not coplanar
because they do not lie in the same plane.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007