Appeal No. 1997-3088
Application No. 08/521,562
Crawley is not the same as the claimed patch which is required to be “pre-formed,” i.e., an
integral unit, already in existence, ready to be attached to an element such as a foundation
member, and then “placed,” or actually attached by some mechanical means, in operative
relationship with the foundation member. Looking at Crawley’s “patch” in the best light
relative to the examiner’s rejection, the piezoelectric elements and any embedding
material are not “placed,” as an integral unit, on foundation, 6, but, rather, the piezoelectric
elements of Crawley are built into, or embedded in/on structural member, or foundation
member, (6).
The examiner explicitly ignores the claimed limitation of a “pre-formed control
patch” and gives this limitation “no patentable weight” because it is recited in the preamble
of claim 1. While the other independent claims do not use the term “pre-formed” to
describe the control patch, they describe the device as being an “assembly,” which, in our
view, would indicate a similar pre-formed unit of the piezoelectric sensor and actuator. It is
our view that it was a reversible error for the examiner to ignore this limitation as it is this
very limitation, i.e., “pre-formed” or “assembly,” which is the gist of the invention, making
the device an integral unit of a piezoelectric sensor and actuator which can be
mechanically attached to a foundation member so that the foundation member and the
piezoelectric elements form an operative relationship upon said attachment.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007