Appeal No. 2001-2673
Application No. 09/299,470 Page 6
the “actual functional structure claimed” is anticipated by the
prior art (id.).
We find that the acknowledged prior art teaches (Fig. 17) an
identifying marking “in a semicircular shape at a portion of the
outer peripheral portion of the electrode” (specification, page
2). Appellants’ specification identifies (page 3) a problem in
the prior art, pursuant to which the position of the marking upon
the piezoelectric element cannot be detected by image processing
apparatus. This problem may occur if the piezoelectric element
is misaligned when the marking is formed thereupon, such that an
outer portion of the marking is formed outside the periphery of
the element and only an inner portion of the marking is formed
upon the element itself (id.). In accordance with the magnitude
of such misalignment, the area of the marking formed upon the
element is reduced in proportion to the radius of curvature of
the semicircle (id.). As a result, the resulting area of the
marking may be too small to be detected by image processing
apparatus if such misalignment occurs (id.).
Appellants assert (brief, page 12) that the prior art does
not disclose the form of the claimed at least one marking. Claim
1 recites each of the at least one identifying markings having “a
shape comprising multiple straight sides.” The specification
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007