Appeal No. 95-4863
Application 07/865,993
examiner has not demonstrated any evidence in the record as to
why the other specific parameters of the piezoelectric element as
recited in claim 1 would have been obvious to the artisan in view
of the applied references or why an explosion monitoring sensor
would be used in a pressure sensing device.
With respect to the rejections based on McElroy,
appellants argue that McElroy 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 in McElroy is unrelated to an x-y
plane for receiving pressure forces, and there is no motivation
to use the McElroy inspection device in an engine pressure sensor
[brief, pages 9-10]. Other than to note that the thickness of
the piezoelectric element would be obtained through routine
experimentation of the routineer, the examiner has not addressed
any of these questions. In our view, McElroy also teaches
nothing more than that piezoelectric elements made from lithium
niobate crystal would operate in a high temperature environment.
The examiner has not demonstrated any evidence in the record as
to why the other specific parameters of the piezoelectric element
as recited in claim 1 would have been obvious to the artisan in
view of the applied references or why the teachings of McElroy
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007