Appeal No. 2006-1751
Application No. 09/778,872
present, might meet the requirements of instant claim 24; i.e., that at least one
component (comprised of the ground electrode, piezoelectric thin film, and at least one
upper electrode) 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 acoustical
wave device on the wafer. Further, the rejection does not show disclosure, in any of the
applied references, where the piezoelectric thin film varies in at least one characteristic
(e.g., thickness) across the wafer, or otherwise account for the recitation that appears in
claim 24.
We therefore reach substantially the same result as in the parent application.
Because prima facie anticipation of at least instant claim 24 has not been demonstrated
in view of the disclosure of any of Krishnaswamy, Curran, Vale, or Ishii, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 24-33 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Nor do we sustain
the rejection of claims 34-39, 61, and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as the rejection for
alleged obviousness does not remedy the deficiencies in the rejection applied against
base claim 24.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007