Appeal No. 2001-2673
Application No. 09/299,470 Page 9
the prior art to provide a piezoelectric actuator having at least
one identifying marking with multiple straight sides.
Accordingly, we find that the examiner has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to independent claim
1 and, consequently, has also failed to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with respect to claims 2 and 6 through 9
which depend therefrom.
From all of the above, we reverse the rejection of claims 1,
2 and 6 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by or,
in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the
prior art.
We turn next to independent claim 3. Claim 3 recites a
piezoelectric actuator comprising, inter alia, an “identifying
marking being formed proximate an outer periphery of the
electrode pattern and between the contiguous electrodes in the
electrode pattern” (emphasis added). We note that the prior art,
as represented by appellants’ figure 17, teaches “a marking 104
in a semicircular shape at a portion of the outer peripheral
portion of the electrode 102a in the fan-like shape of the
electrode pattern 102” (specification, page 2) (emphasis added).
As the prior art only teaches (id.) an identifying marking formed
on the outer peripheral portion of a single electrode, we find
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007