Appeal No. 2001-0189
Application No. 09/033,873
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, and 6 based on the
combination of Hine and Pies, we do not sustain this rejection as
well. As with the Moynihan reference discussed supra, our
interpretation of the disclosures of both Hine and Pies coincides
with that of Appellants, i.e., there is no “pattern of deformable
electrode material” as presently claimed. We agree with
Appellants (Brief, page 30) that the electrode layers in Hine and
Pies are formed by a metallization process in which the
metallized electrode layer solidifies and rigidly adheres to the
piezoelectric layer surface. Further, as argued by Appellants
(id., at 31), the adhesive bonding feature of Pies relied on by
the Examiner relates to the joining of metallized conductive
surfaces 34 and 38 on two body portions 12 and 14, rather than
the bonding of a deformable electrode layer to a piezoelectric
layer surface. Given these deficiencies in the Hine and Pies
references, it is unclear to us as to how and in what manner the
references might be combined to arrive at the claimed invention.
It is further our view that even assuming, arguendo, that proper
motivation existed for combining Hine and Pies, the Examiner has
failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness since
the resultant structure would fall well short of the claimed
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007