Appeal No. 1997-0947
Application 08/385,926
"forms a diaphragm" (Answer, page 4) (emphasis added). The examiner further notes that "Ravinet
shows (fig. 13) a convex (when undriven) piezoelectric disk (3) which forms a diaphragm (3)" (Answer,
page 5) (emphasis added). The motivation for combining either of the secondary references with
Texaco is the same, "in order to focus the generated energy" (Answer, page 4 and page 5). We note
that the examiner makes no arguments in response to the Brief (see Answer, page 6, section 13,
Response to Argument) and relies solely on the statement of the rejection at pages 3 to 5 of the
Answer.
Independent claim 1 on appeal clearly calls for two distinct elements: (1) "a ceramic substrate
having at least one window, and a diaphragm portion formed as an integral part thereof, . . . , said
diaphragm portion having a convex shape;" and (2) a "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" (claim 1 on
appeal) (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that Hubbard and Ravinet have no actual diaphragm since these references
have eliminated the diaphragm by forming the piezoelectric layer itself in a convex shape (Brief, pages
7, 8, and 13). We agree.
Hubbard specifically states that a desired advantage of his invention "is that a diaphragm is no
longer required, thereby saving a considerable amount of time in manufacturing and expense."
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007