PTAB decision in Ex parte Florian
The PTAB basically adopted the arguments of the Appellant in the case Ex parte Florian :
We reverse the above § 103 rejection,
for substantially the reasons provided by Appellants in their Brief and Reply Brief.
We add the following.
It is the Examiner’s position that the primary reference of Hayano
discloses the claimed subject matter, except for the recitation of
“wherein the piezoelectric layers, the electrode layers, and the absorption layer
together form a sintered monolithic component”. Ans. 4–5.
The Examiner relies upon Ragossnig for suggesting
this aspect of the claimed subject
matter. Ans. 5
As to motivation:
We add that “[i]f the
proposed modification would render the prior art
invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there
is no suggestion or motivation
to make the proposed modification.
In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902
(Fed. Cir. 1984)”
March 18, 2015. Attorneys involved were Fish & Richardson.