Appeal No. 94-3696
Application 07/995,230
spatial map signal location.
Claims 2-19 depend either directly or indirectly from claim
1, and no claim depends from claim 20.
Opinion
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 as being
unpatentable over prior art.
The examiner found that the sole difference between the
claimed invention and either Carson or Jarvis is that the sensor
of Carson and Jarvis does not include an electric charge
generating means for preconditioning the piezoelectric effect
material (answer at 3). The recitation in claim 1 actually
further specifies that the electrical charge generating means is
only "temporarily" connected to the two-dimensional array of
electrodes. At least with respect to independent claim 1, the
appellant does not dispute the examiner's finding. Independent
method claim 20 recites a corresponding feature, i.e., "each said
signal generating step being preceded by a temporary low voltage
electrical signal induced output signal range limiting physical
preconditioning of said piezoelectric film."
The appellant persuasively argues that the applied
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007