Ex parte GURURAJA - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1997-2074                                       Page 2           
          Application No. 08/292,634                                                  


               Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                          
               1.   A transducer comprising:                                          
               a transducer element for ultrasonic imaging of the human               
          body having a 2-2 or 1-3 composite structure and driven in a k31            
          transverse mode, the element having a plurality of relatively               
          thin spaced piezoceramic wafers having relatively large area                
          opposing major surfaces with electrodes, wherein the wafers are             
          connected electrically in parallel to provide electrical                    
          impedance matching to an electrical impedance of an ultrasonic              
          imaging system, and a layer of passive polymer between                      
          electrodes on adjacent wafers to provide acoustic impedance                 
          matching to the acoustic impedance of a human body, and wherein             
          the relative thickness of the polymer layer is less than that               
          of the wafer in order to increase the number of wafers                      
          connected electrically in parallel per element volume.                      

               The examiner relies on the following reference:                        
          Kleinschmidt et al.           4,677,337           Jun. 30, 1987             
          [Kleinschmidt]                                                              

               Claims 1 through 3 and 17 through 26 stand rejected under              
          35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Kleinschmidt.                            
               Reference is made to the brief and answer for the                      
          respective positions of appellant and the examiner.                         
                                       OPINION                                        
               We reverse because the examiner has clearly failed to set              
          forth a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the                  
          instant claimed subject matter.                                             








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007