Appeal No. 94-3696
Application 07/995,230
voltage to a piezoelectric material being used as a sensor and
providing an electrical signal as an output. The connection is
too remote. The appellant is correct that the claims do not
simply recite the sensor aspect of the invention in the preamble
of the claims. Rather, physical force sensing is recited clearly
in the body of the independent claims.
The examiner has not cited sufficient evidence revealing
that the particular problems relating to using piezoelectric
material to convert electrical energy to mechanical energy were
also known to plague using the material to convert mechanical
energy to electrical energy. Also, even assuming that the same
problems were recognized, it cannot be assumed that the same
solutions would work in the different settings, given the reverse
nature of the operations and requirements for inputs and outputs.
There can be no presumption that whatever one would do when using
piezoelectric material to provide mechanical motion one would do
the same when using the material as a sensor. Moreover, in this
case, while the claims call for "temporary" application of a low
biasing voltage to precondition the material, the biasing
voltages of Rudnick and May, Jr., as identified by the examiner
are not temporary.
The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007