Appeal No. 2005-2151
Application No. 09/822,473
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984)); however, the law of anticipation
does not require that the reference teach what the appellants are claiming, but only that
the claims on appeal "read on" something disclosed in the reference (see Kalman v.
Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 465 U.S. 1026 (1984)).
From our review of the examiner’s rejection, responsive arguments and the
teachings of Yasooka, we find that the examiner has at least established a prima facie
case of anticipation of independent claim 1. We find that in the examiner’s responsive
arguments, the examiner has further elaborated upon the grounds of (new) rejection
made in the final rejection, and we find that appellants have not filed a reply brief to
further address the examiner’s further clarification of the grounds of rejection.
Therefore, we will accept the examiner’s statement of the grounds of rejection as
correct since it has not been rebutted by appellants. The totality of appellants’
argument in the brief is as follows:
there is no switching of capacitors under electronic control in Yasooka.
Rather, the switch 12c is, from all indications, manually switched.
Furthermore, the “frequency changing circuit” 3 of Yasooka is simply a
well known downconverter, i.e., RF mixer. It does not in any way affect the
capacitors12a and 12b. Note the description on the bottom third of page 2
of the translation of Yasooka, which describes the received frequency f1
being downconverted to an intermediate frequency f3 using a local
oscillator signal of frequency f2, where f3=f2=f1.
While the examiner repeats the statement of the rejection from the final rejection which
states “switch control circuit 3 for adjusting front tend selectivity of the RF stage,” the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007