Appeal No. 1997-3667
Application 08/384,469
not satisfactorily shown that the results of Example I (corresponding to the claimed invention) are
superior or unexpected when compared with the closest prior art (GB ‘647 and JP ‘399). As a matter
of fact, the declaration, dated in 1994, fails to address the JP ‘399 reference at all. Accordingly, since
there are no superior or unexpected test results shown, we cannot find the declaration sufficient to
overcome the examiner’s showing of obviousness with respect to the claimed invention over the
combined teachings of GB ‘647 and JP ‘399.
Appellants argue (Request for Reconsideration, page 2) that the evidence of secondary
considerations set forth in the April 8, 1994, declaration of Mr. Takeuchi, such as "good piezoelectric
ceramic material properties including good displacement and very little warpage and dimensional error"
(Request for Reconsideration, pages 2 to 3), should be taken into consideration in determining the
patentability of the claimed subject matter. As we stated at page 5 of our original opinion, we have
considered the April 8 declaration and appellants’ arguments in the briefs, as well as the teachings of
GB ‘647 and JP ‘399, and we find appellants’ declaration and arguments insufficient to overcome the
examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. Although we do find it significant that Example I
(appellants’ invention: pre-sintered and without adhesive) resulted in a displacement of 20 micrometers
when compared to 0-4 micrometers of Examples II through IV (made according to principles of GB
‘647: pre-sintered and with adhesive), this only shows that elimination of bonding adhesives is an
important factor in increasing displacement. Thus, even though we may agree with appellants that the
declaration proves that eliminating bonding adhesives is quite important (Brief, page 5) and that the use
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007