Appeal No. 95-4871
Application No. 08/172,666
disclosed by Wingrove or, in the alternative, to effect
complete encapsulation of Evans' device based upon the
teachings of Wingrove.
Appellants repeat their argument 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
(Brief, pages 6 and 7).
We are of the opinion that the examiner has failed again
to demonstrate that the prior art suggested the desirability
of either proposed modification. The need for Evans’ epoxy
impregnated fiberglass cloth in Wingrove’s implantable hearing
aid has not been established, and the examiner has not
explained how a completely encapsulated transducer in Evans
will function as a piano key. The obviousness rejection of
claims 8 through 11 and 23 is reversed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007