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 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007