Appeal No. 2005-2002
Application No. 10/132,281
Appellants argue that it is clear from a review of the examiner’s rejection that the
examiner is relying upon two separate and divergent teachings in Fujimoto. (Brief at
page 4.) We agree with appellants that the examiner is relying upon the teachings of
Fujimoto and the prior art system disclosed in the Description of Related Art section of
Fujimoto. We agree with appellants that the disclosure of Fujimoto is directed to a SAW
device which used either tungsten or tantalum to form its reflectors and IDT’s and
merely discusses a comparison to the use of gold for these elements. Therefore, we
find that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of anticipation.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007