Appeal No. 95-4863
Application 07/865,993
lithium niobate crystal for its ability to operate in high
temperature environments. The examiner holds generally that it
would have been obvious to use a lithium niobate piezoelectric
element in Sonderegger or Lukasiewicz if it was desired to
operate them in a high temperature environment [answer, page 3].
Appellants present arguments as to the individual
deficiencies of each of the applied references, and appellants
also present arguments as to why the artisan would have found no
motivation to combine the teachings of any of the secondary
references with either of the primary references [brief, pages 6-
14]. The examiner’s response to appellants’ arguments in the
brief is that no additional response was felt to be necessary
[answer, page 4].
We reverse all of the examiner’s rejections because the
examiner has failed to address legitimate factual questions
raised by appellants, and because we find appellants’ arguments
persuasive in the absence of any rebuttal arguments by the
examiner.
With respect to the rejections based on Epstein,
appellants argue that Epstein is not a pressure sensor as
claimed, there is no suggestion of a thickness of 0.3-1.5 mm as
claimed, the polarization angle is not less than or equal to 20o
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007