Appeal No. 1998-0765
Application No. 08/451,853
Rejection under Kaiser, McSweeney, Miyasaka and
Brauer or Peng
The examiner rejects, answer at page 7 to 9, claims 20,
22, 24 and 27 over this combination of references. Even
though appellants do not specifically discuss the Brauer
patent or the Peng publication, we find that neither Brauer
nor Peng cure the deficiency noted above in the combination of
Kaiser, McSweeney and Miyasaka. Each of these claims depend
on claim 16 and contain the same limitations. Therefore, we
do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 20, 22, 24
and 27 over Kaiser, McSweeney, Miyasaka, and Brauer or Peng.
Rejection under Uchino and Miyasaka
Claims 16 to 22, and 24 to 36 are rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over this combination. The
examiner gives a detailed explanation of the rejection at
pages 9 and 10 of the examiner’s answer. Appellants argue,
brief at page 9, that,
[a]s the examiner pointed out, Uchino does suggest
that his laminate electrode structure for
piezoelectric actuators is similar to laminate
capacitor electrodes which are also made using thick
film technology. A laminate capacitor is formed
similar to that described by Uchino on page 8 where
the materials are spread on
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007