Appeal No. 1997-0947
Application 08/385,926
(Brief, pages 3 and 11; and specification, page 31, Table 1).
For the reasons set forth in the Brief (pages 5 to 13), and as further discussed, infra, we find
that the applied references to Texaco, Hubbard, and Ravinet fail to teach or suggest, individually or in
any combination thereof, at least the features discussed above and defined in claims 1 to 7 of a
substrate with integral convex diaphragm and a laminated P/E film unit formed on the convex
diaphragm.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A piezoelectric/electrostrictive film element comprising:
a ceramic substrate having at least one window, and a diaphragm portion formed as an integral
part thereof, for closing each of said at least one window, said diaphragm portion having a convex
shape and protruding outwards, in a direction away from a corresponding one of said at least one
window; and
a film-like piezoelectric/electrostrictive unit including a lower electrode, a
piezoelectric/electrostrictive layer and an upper electrode, which are formed in lamination in the order
of description on a convex outer surface of said diaphragm portion by a film-forming method, wherein
said convex shape of the diaphragm portion is provided in an unbiased state of the
piezoelectric/electrostrictive unit.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Ravinet et al. (Ravinet) 4,535,205 Aug. 13, 1985
Hubbard 4,635,079 Jan. 6, 1987
Texaco et al. (Texaco) 5,210,455 May 11, 1993
Claims 1 to 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Texaco in view of Hubbard.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007