Appeal No. 95-3557
Application No. 07/833,417
appears that the vertical membrane structure having thinner membranes (i.e., flexure sections)
suspended on thicker rims (i.e., boss
sections) of Huster is substantially identical with the instantly claimed flexure section provided in a
silicon material joined with a boss section.
Appellants have argued that variations in section thickness may or may not lead to a significant
variation in the bending strength of the section, e.g., a variation of +/- 0.5 µm is insignificant in a
diaphragm thickness of 17 to 20 µms but the same +/- 0.5 µm variation in a flexure section of 5 µms or
less results in a change of 10% or more (brief, page 12). However, none of the claims on appeal
recites any limitations as to the thickness of the boss section or the flexure section. Secondly, Huster
states that after the transition from the thick rim/boss section to the thin membrane/flexure section, “the
thin membrane reaches a constant thickness” (emphasis added, page 901, last full sentence of col. 1).
Therefore, since there seems to be no substantial change in the thickness of Huster’s flexure section,
similar to the controlled thickness flexure section produced by appellants’ epitaxial layer, it appears that
Huster discloses substantially the same invention as claimed.
Where, as here, the prior art product reasonably appears to fall within the scope of that which
is claimed by appellant, it is reasonable to shift the burden to the appellant to provide evidence showing
that the product of the prior art does not fall within the scope of appellant’s claims. In re Fitzgerald,
619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980). As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255,
195 USPQ at 433-34 (CCPA 1977):
- 9 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007