Appeal No. 1997-3088
Application No. 08/521,562
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We turn first to the rejection of the independent claims 1, 8, 17 and 23 over Crawley.
The examiner relies on Figure 2 of Crawley and contends that the spaced apart
piezoelectric sensors (10) and actuators (14) embedded in graphite and mounted on
foundation (6) meets the subject matter set forth in at least the independent claims. The
examiner explains that since the piezoelectric elements are embedded, these components
rest on a base and, also, control electronics (8, 12) are located between the sensors and
actuators.
If strain-gauge piezoelectric elements (10) of Crawley are embedded, along with
the actuator piezoelectric elements (14) of Crawley, then, perhaps, it might be reasonable
to conclude that Crawley describes the claimed “patch” since the embedding substance
might be said to form a base and the piezoelectric sensors (10) and actuators (14),
together with the base, would form a “patch”, as claimed. Appellants argue that, in
Crawley, only the actuators (14) are embedded but that the sensors (10) are not
specifically disclosed as embedded. While that may be true, elements (10) of Crawley’s
Figure 2 are described as being, for example, “piezoelectric
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007