Appeal No. 2001-2673
Application No. 09/299,470 Page 11
From all of the above, we reverse the rejection of claim 3
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 4. The examiner’s
position (answer, page 3) is that the prior art anticipates the
structure of the claimed piezoelectric actuator. Appellants
argue that “the relationship between the identifying markings
recited in these claims and the underlying electrode pattern is
distinct from that shown in the admitted prior art” (brief, page
17). Claim 4 recites “an integer number m identifying markings
formed in the electrode pattern. . . , the m identifying markings
being formed at equal intervals in accordance with the relation
m=n/(2xp),” where n is the integer number of portions into which
the piezoelectric element is divided and p is the integer number
of divided portions polarized in each direction. Although the
term ‘integer’ generally includes the number ‘1’, we read the
claim language of “m identifying markings” as requiring the value
of m to be at least 2. We note that the prior art
(specification, Fig. 17) teaches forming a single identifying
marking on a piezoelectric element. Consequently, we find that
the prior art fails to disclose the claimed multiple identifying
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007