Appeal No. 95-4871
Application No. 08/172,666
Appellants argue (Brief, pages 4, 5, and 7) that the
applied references are not concerned with encapsulation of a
piezoelectric ceramic with a non-conductive fiber composite
material, and are not concerned with the differences in
thermal expansion between the ceramic and the encapsulant. We
agree.
With respect to the use of Whatmore’s KEVLAR in the
implantable hearing aid in Wingrove, the human body may or may
not accept the KEVLAR. Even if the body would accept KEVLAR,
who would want a hearing aid that needs that kind of
protection? With respect to complete encapsulation of the
piezoelectric composite in Whatmore (Figure 3), the
encapsulants taught by Wingrove are not the claimed
encapsulant. The mere fact that the prior art may be modified
in the manner suggested by the examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d
1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992). The obviousness rejection of claims 8, 12, 13 and 23
is reversed.
Evans was cited with Wingrove in the obviousness
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007