Appeal No. 2001-0189
Application No. 09/033,873
as disclosing structure which is capable of performing the
recited functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital
Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore & Assocs.
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed.
Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner attempts
to read the various limitations on the disclosure of Moynihan.
In particular, the Examiner directs attention (Answer, pages
3 and 4) to the illustrations in Figures 11 and 14 of Moynihan
along with the accompanying description beginning at column
9, line 60.
Appellants’ arguments in response assert a failure of
Moynihan to disclose every limitation in independent claim 1 as
is required to support a rejection based on anticipation. At
pages 21 and 22 of the Brief, Appellants’ arguments focus on the
contention that there is no teaching or suggestion that
Moynihan’s piezoelectric plate structure has a deformable
electrode material adhesively bonded to a surface of the ceramic
piezoelectric layer as required in the appealed claims. Instead,
in Appellants’ view, the electrode pattern in Moynihan is formed
on a conventional metallized layer which is not deformable since
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007