Ex Parte HASHIZUME et al - Page 2




Appeal No. 2000-0710                                                                  
Serial No. 08/788,959                                                                 
                                                                                     
                    an electrode for applying an electric field to                    
               said piezoelectric thin film,                                          
                    wherein said piezoelectric thin film and said                     
               electrode are patterned to the same shape and without a                
               pattern shift between said piezoelectric thin film and                 
               said electrode.                                                        
               The references relied upon by the examiner are:                        
          Rittberg                  DE 2,256,667              Jun. 06, 1974           
          (German Patent Document)                                                    
          Fujii                     JP 5-286131               Nov. 02, 1993           
          (Japanese Patent Application)                                               
               Claims 1, 3-9 and 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                 
          § 112, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting                   
          essential structural cooperative relationships of elements.                 
               Claims 1, 4 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)             
          as anticipated by JP 5-286131 (Fujii)1.                                     
               Claims 3, 5-9, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                
          § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fujii in view of DE 2,256,667           
          (Rittberg)2.                                                                
               The respective positions of the examiner and the appellants            
          with regard to the propriety of these rejections are set forth in           


                                                                                     
          1. The examiner’s answer erroneously includes claim 2 and 10 in this        
          rejection.  Claim 2 was cancelled in the amendment filed January 27,        
          1999 (Paper No. 16) and claim 10 was cancelled in the amendment filed       
          August 3, 1998 (Paper No. 14).                                              
          2. In the examiner’s response to the reply brief (Paper No. 24), it         
          was acknowledged that claim 21 was inadvertently omitted from this          
                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007