Appeal No. 1997-3667
Application 08/384,469
Representative claim 1 is again reproduced below (with emphasis added):
1. A piezoelectric/electrostrictive actuator consisting essentially of a pre-sintered ceramic
substrate, said substrate consisting of a ceramic sheet which consists essentially of a non-
piezoelectric/electrostrictive material having a major component which consists of at least one material
from the group consisting of aluminum oxide, magnesium oxide, zirconium oxide, aluminum nitride and
silicon nitride, said ceramic sheet containing not greater than 3 wt.% of Sio or Sio ; and
2
at least one piezoelectric/electrostrictive actuator unit formed on at least a portion of at least
one surface of the substrate without a bonding adhesive, each of said at least one
piezoelectric/electrostrictive actuator unit consisting of:
a first electrode film consisting essentially of electrically conductive electrode material formed on
said at least a portion of at least one surface of the substrate;
a piezoelectric/electrostrictive film consisting essentially of a piezoelectric/electrostrictive
material formed on said first electrode film; and
a second electrode film consisting essentially of electrically conductive electrode material
formed on said piezoelectric/electrostrictive film, wherein said piezoelectric/electrostrictive film is
formed by a thick-film forming process, said films are laminated together without a bonding adhesive,
and said films are heat-treated on said pre-sintered ceramic substrate to integrate said at least one
piezoelectric/electrostrictive actuator unit with said pre-sintered ceramic substrate, said pre-sintered
ceramic substrate having been sintered prior to formation of said films thereon.
As a consequence of our close review of our original opinion, we are still in general agreement
with the examiner (Answer, pages 3 to 4) that the combination of at least GB’ 647 and JP ‘399 would
have fairly suggested the invention of claims 1 to 3, 6 to 8, 11, 12 and 16 to 19 on appeal. This finding
is supported by the detailed discussion set forth in our original opinion at pages 5 to 8 therein.
We note that appellants’ request for reconsideration is based solely on the assertion that the
Takeuchi declaration of April 8, 1994, "shows patentability of the claimed subject matter" (Request for
Reconsideration, page 2). That is, appellants do not traverse our finding in the original opinion that GB
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007