Appeal No. 95-3273
Application 08/136,856
B. The rejections based on Rokurota
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Rokurota and claims 3-11 stand rejected under
§ 103 as unpatentable over that reference. The examiner reads
claims 1-2 onto the reference as follows (Answer at 4):
Regarding claims 1-2, Rokurota discloses in
Fig. 3, a piezoelectric-film sound transducer
comprising: a thin film of piezoelectric material (38)
having two opposite faces, two thin films (40, 42) of
conductive material, thereby forming a piezoelectric
sandwich element, a solid, flat, substantially
inflexible substrate (printed circuits formed on the
substrate 34, see column 4, lines 11-12) laminated to
the piezoelectric sandwich element along substantially
the entire surface of the conductive layers, and two
connecting conductors (60) connected to the two films
for conducting an electrical signal between the
piezoelectric sandwich element and some external point.
Appellant does not dispute that Rokurota's substrate 34
is substantially inflexible. Instead, appellant argues (Reply
Brief at 3) that Rokurota's piezoelectric material 38 fails to
satisfy claim 1's requirement for a "thin film of piezoelectric
material," because the only piezoelectric material Rokurota
discloses is a ceramic material (col. 3, line 68 to col. 4, line
2; col. 4, lines 49-52), in which notches 64 (Fig. 4E) may be cut
with a diamond saw (col. 5, lines 36-37). According to
appellant,
[e]ssentially, a thin film element is, except for its
electrical characteristics, about like any sheet of
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007