Appeal No. 1997-1003
Application No. 08/188,145
variables, the examiner has failed to establish the
obviousness of the particular values or ranges recited.
Furthermore, we find no disclosure of the above-noted
limitations in any of the references, nor has the examiner
pointed to any portion in any of the references which would
suggest them. Accordingly, the examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, and we cannot
sustain the rejection of claims 32, 34, and 36, nor of their
dependents, claims 33, 37, and 38.
Regarding the rejection of claim 10, the examiner
contends (Answer, pages 3-4) that
Sonderegger teaches a device using one PCB laminated
to piezoelements with different response/actuation
directions. Iten teaches it is convenient to use a
PCB on each side of a plurality of piezoelements to
form a laminated structure that fully encloses the
piezoelements to provide an easily manufactured,
fully protected piezoelectric transducer.
Sonderegger and Iten are directed to two completely different
types of structures, and it is unclear to us how or why one
would combine the two to arrive at the claimed invention.
Furthermore, claim 10 depends from claim 1, and, therefore,
includes all of the limitations thereof. Thus, claim 10, for
example, requires a planarizing layer of curable material
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007