Appeal No. 2006-1751
Application No. 09/778,872
Claim 24 is the sole independent claim in this appeal. The claim requires, inter
alia, that at least one component in some of the plurality of acoustical wave devices is
modified in its operational characteristic to compensate for the variation in the at least
one characteristic of the piezoelectric thin film and is based on the location of the at
least one acoustical wave device on the wafer. The language is substantially the same
as that considered by a panel of the Board in a claim (claim 42) in an earlier, related
appeal in the parent application (No. 09/202,070; Appeal No. 2005-0185).3 In a
decision entered April 27, 2005, we did not sustain the rejection of the corresponding
claim in the parent application under 35 U.S.C. § 102 over any of the four references
that are now applied, in the alternative, against instant claim 24.
The statement of the rejection of instant claim 24 (Answer at 3) does not point
out where the above-noted limitation may be described in any of Krishnaswamy,
Curran, Vale, or Ishii. In the responsive arguments section (id. at 4), the examiner
alleges that “[t]he references all mention tuning at least the final frequency of each
resonator (each with its own location on the wafer, thus wafer location based
adjustments) via addition as substraction [sic; addition or subtraction?] of mass.”
The rejection neglects, however, to point out where any of the references might
contain description, express or inherent, of the teaching attributed to each of the
references. Moreover, the rejection neglects to explain how such disclosure, even if
3 The parent application issued on November 8, 2005 as US 6,963,155 B1.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007