Appeal No. 2000-0710
Serial No. 08/788,959
the final rejection and the examiner’s answer (Paper Nos. 15 and
22, respectively) and the appellants’ brief and reply brief
(Paper Nos. 21 and 23, respectively).
Appellants’ Invention
A summary of the invention is set forth at pages 2 and 3 of
the brief.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph
Claims 1, 3-9 and 20-22
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented
by both the examiner and the appellants, we have concluded that
this rejection should be sustained. We agree in general with the
comments made by the examiner; we add the following discussion
for emphasis.
The disclosed invention is a unitary structure, not a kit or
package of ready to assemble parts. There are few positive
recitations of structural cooperation among the elements listed
in the claims and, consequently, the claims are incomplete. In
re Collier, 397 F.2d 1003, 158 USPQ 266 (CCPA 1968). For
example, in claim 1 the only structural relationship defined is
that of “a piezoelectric thin film on said diaphragm”.
Recitations associated with other claimed elements are functional
only.
rejection.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007