Ex parte AKIYAMA et al. - Page 2




          Appeal No. 1998-0378                                                        
          Application No. 08/705,063                                                  


               a structural material;                                                 
               a voltage generating material formed of a ferroelectric                
          material, a pyroelectric material, or a piezoelectric                       
          material, which is bonded to said structural material and                   
          which generates a voltage in accordance with an impact force                
          applied to said structural material; and                                    
               an electrode, connected to said structural material and                
          said voltage generating material, which detects cracks in said              
          structural material by detecting said voltage generated by                  
          said voltage generating material.                                           
               The prior art reference of record relied upon by the                   
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                               
          Dufrane et al. (Dufrane)      4,255,974                Mar. 17,             
          1981                                                                        
               Claims 8 through 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103               
          as being unpatentable over Dufrane.                                         
               Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 20,              
          mailed October 15, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning              
          in support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper               
          No. 19, filed July 15, 1997) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 21,                 
          filed October 30, 1997) for appellants' arguments                           
          thereagainst.                                                               
                                       OPINION                                        
               We have carefully considered the claims, the applied                   
          prior art reference, and the respective positions articulated               
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007