Appeal No. 2001-2673
Application No. 09/299,470 Page 13
electrode pattern. Accordingly, we find that the examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to
claim 4.
From all of the above, we reverse the rejection of claim 4
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.
In accordance with our reversal of the rejections of claims
1 through 4, we also reverse the rejection of dependent claim 5
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, as claim 5 incorporates by reference the piezoelectric
actuator according to any one of claims 1 to 4.
We turn next to independent claim 10. Claim 10 recites a
piezoelectric actuator comprising, inter alia:
. . . at least one identifying marking formed on the
electrode pattern, each of the at least one identifying
markings having a shape comprising multiple sides and
being formed at a specific location of the electrode
pattern for use in identifying a characteristic of the
electrode pattern. . . .
While the examiner’s position is that the acknowledged prior art
anticipates claim 10, appellants argue that the claimed
piezoelectric actuator differs in the form of the identifying
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007