Appeal No. 2000-0166
Application No. 07/809,042
At the outset, we note that claims 1-3 are grouped
together, see brief at page 4.
We take claim 1 for our discussion here. The examiner
asserts (answer, at page 4) that the admitted prior art, as
demonstrated by appellants’ figs. 4 and 5, teaches all the
recited features of the piezo-electrostrictive film type chip
except that the pin holes used in assembling the unit are not
located near the center of gravity of the transducer. The
examiner relies on Maltsev for the teaching of the recited pin
being near the central gravity of the transducer assembly. The
examiner asserts (id. at 4) that “it would have been obvious . .
. to place the alignment hole of the prior art [at] the center
of the transducer assembly.”
Appellants argue, brief at pages 5 and 6, that “[t]here
would have been no reason for the person of ordinary skill in
the art to have even looked to a stacked structure such as
Maltsev to solve problems associated with the planar devices
having a pin hole at an edge portion thereof.” The examiner
responds, answer at page 5, that “it is not seen how two
transducers both using the same materials [,] both used as ink
jet printers and, both cited in the European search report and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007