Appeal No. 1998-0865
Application No. 08/488,455
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 2
through 6 and 8 through 12.
Independent claim 2 includes a substrate with a "thin-
walled region being curved into said recess" and a
piezoelectric transducer "being curved in the same direction
as said thin-walled region." Thus, all of the claims require
that both a portion of the substrate and also the transducer
be curved into the recess.
The examiner admits (Answer, page 3) that the
piezoelectric device of Takeuchi I or II "is not curved." The
examiner turns to Hubbard to remedy this deficiency and
asserts (Answer, page 3) that "Hubbard teaches a similar
device usnig [sic] a curved piezoelement as it gives a
preferred or biased direction of operation. . . . Thus, for
at least the reasons taught by Hubbard, it would have been
obvious to impart curvature to the drive sections of" Takeuchi
I or II.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007