Appeal No. 2001-0189
Application No. 09/033,873
We are aware that the Examiner, at page 7 of the Answer, has
expanded the line of reasoning expressed in the statement of the
grounds of rejection. The Examiner asserts that the conductive
particles in the epoxy adhesive used to bond the piezoelectric
plate to the carbon plate constitute an adhesively bonded
deformable electrode material as set forth in appealed claim 1.
We do not find this assertion to be persuasive. In our view, no
evidence exists that any doping of conductive material in the
epoxy adhesive in Moynihan would form a “pattern” of electrode
material as claimed. We further find to be completely lacking in
evidentiary support the Examiner’s further assertion (id.) that
the skilled artisan “ . . . would inherently know electrode,
i.e., conductive particle, material is deformable . . . . ” The
Examiner must not only make requisite findings, based on the
evidence of record, but must also explain the reasoning by which
the findings are deemed to support the asserted conclusion. See
In re Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1343, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1433-34 (Fed.
Cir. 2002).
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not present in the disclosure of Moynihan, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
independent claim 1, nor of claims 2-6 dependent thereon.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007