Appeal No. 1998-0378
Application No. 08/705,063
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 8
through 14.
Claim 8 requires, in pertinent part, "a voltage
generating material formed of a ferroelectric material, a
pyroelectric material, or a piezoelectric material." The
examiner (Answer, page 3) recognizes that Dufrane's conductive
layer of metal, an alloy, or a metal compound is not
ferroelectric, pyroelectric, or piezoelectric, as recited in
claim 8, but asserts that Dufrane's material is a "well known
functional equivalent" of the claimed materials. We disagree.
The function of the claimed materials is to generate voltages.
Dufrane's materials cannot generate voltages; they must be
placed in an electrical circuit for a voltage to be present.
Since Dufrane's materials cannot function as the claimed
voltage generating materials, they cannot be functionally
equivalent to the claimed ferroelectric, pyroelectric, or
piezoelectric materials.
Claim 8 further recites that the voltage generating
material is bonded to a structural material and generates a
voltage according to an impact force applied to the structural
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007