Appeal No. 1997-0947
Application 08/385,926
(Hubbard; column 1, lines 58 to 61). Thus, we agree with appellants (Brief, pages 8 and 9) that
Hubbard teaches away from Texaco, who employs a flat diaphragm integral with a substrate. First,
Hubbard teaches using quartz and not layered electrodes. Second, as recited in Hubbard’s claim 1
(see column 3, line 33 to column 4, line 6), the crystal or piezoelectric element 28 is configured in a
convex shape, and is not a diaphragm. The examiner relies therefore on the P/E unit 28 of Hubbard as
constituting the diaphragm. We find no diaphragm in Hubbard.
Ravinet (Figure 13) teaches a microphone having a convex shaped P/E unit consisting of a
piezoelectric plate (3) which is sandwiched between two electrodes (4 and 5). Ravinet fails, however,
to teach a convex diaphragm integrally formed in a window of a substrate upon which the P/E unit is
formed.
Appellants’ claims on appeal call for a layered P/E unit 18 (consisting of lower electrode 12,
P/E layer 14, upper electrode 16) being formed by lamination on top of a convex diaphragm (10),
wherein the convex diaphragm (10) is integrally formed with a window (6) in a ceramic substrate (6).
See appellants’ Figure 3. Accordingly, since neither Hubbard nor Ravinet teach a distinct convex
diaphragm portion and a layered P/E unit, we will reverse the rejections of claims 1 to 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner has also failed to cite any persuasive motivation for making the combinations,
other than to say that such would have been obvious "in order to focus the generated energy" for
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007