Appeal No. 95-3273
Application 08/136,856
electrodes) forming a sandwich element; a solid, flat,
inflexible substrate laminated to the piezoelectric
sandwich element (substrate 20 containing aluminum
layers 34 and 35 with damping layer therebetween)
substantially the entire surface of one of the two
conductive layers; and two connecting connectors (91
and 92, see Fig. 12A-12C).
The only point in dispute is whether Geil's substrate
20 satisfies the requirement of claim 1 (and claims 10 and 11)
that the substrate be "substantially inflexible." Appellant
argues (Brief at 12) that this term precludes the ability to be
bent to conform to the curve of a boat hull, as shown in Geil's
Figure 8, or the ability to bend in response to incident acoustic
energy, as is the case with Geil's substrate (col. 4, lines 64-
68). We do not agree. The term "substantially inflexible" is
not defined in appellant's specification and therefore must be
given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
appellant's disclosure. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321,
13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (citing In re Prater,
415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969)). The
only disclosed example of a material suitable for use as the
substrate is "a piece of printed circuit board material" (Spec.
at 6, lines 16-18), whose material, thickness, and degree of
stiffness are not disclosed. However, the specification states
that "[t]he microphone can be molded into different shapes since
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007