Ex parte DOWNS - Page 6




          Appeal No. 95-3273                                                          
          Application 08/136,856                                                      

                    mode, the sound which affects the electrical output can           
                    be effectively limited to that within a pressure field            
                    or in which the microphone is in direct contact with              
                    some physical body (more substantial than open air)               
                    through which the sound is being carried.                         
          Geil's piezoelectric device is likewise designed to operate                 
          essentially in the compression mode.  Unwanted signals due to               
          lateral elongation of the piezoelectric polymer film are reduced            
          by using a steel substrate having a Young's modulus at least an             
          order of magnitude greater than that of the piezoelectric polymer           
          material (col. 6, lines 10-25).  Unwanted signals due to bending            
          and acceleration are reduced by appropriate selection of the                
          polarities of the piezoelectric layers and the interconnections             
          between the electrodes (col. 6, line 26 et seq.; Figs. 12A-C,               
          13A-C, 14A-C, and 15A-C).  Moreover, the bending motion of the              
          piezoelectric sandwich members may be reduced by using a                    
          viscoelastic material in the substrate (col. 7, lines 58-63).               
          Consequently, although the individual piezoelectric sandwich                
          members 22 and 23 experience some bending, they are substantially           
          prevented from experiencing diaphragm-like vibration and thus               
          satisfy the requirement of claim 1 for a "substantially                     
          inflexible" substrate.  Accordingly, we are affirming the                   
          rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.  102(b) as anticipated by             
          Geil.                                                                       



                                         -6-                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007