Appeal No. 95-2600
Application 07/990,458
vertical can be defined in an arbitrary direction. The earphone
in figure 7 of Suwa is rotatable around an axis in the horizontal
plane and does not anticipate claim 15. The examiner does not
apply any backup obviousness reasoning to claim 15. We note that
Heilig shows earphones that are apparently mounted for rotation
about a vertical axis (see hinge attachment of earphones to rod
30 in figure 5); however, Heilig is not applied to the rejection
of claims 15 and 16. The anticipation and obviousness rejections
of claims 15 and 16 are reversed.
Claim 2
In his main brief, appellant does not argue the separate
patentability of the features of claim 2 for which Gale is
additionally cited. Instead, appellant argues that neither Gale
nor the combination of Gale with Suwa teach the features of the
"support frame" and the "goggle-shaped housing" in claim 1
(Brief, page 18). In effect, appellant argues that claim 2
should be patentable because claim 1 is patentable, i.e., that
claim 2 stands or falls with claim 1. Since we sustain the
rejection of claim 1, we will sustain the rejection of claim 2.
Appellant's new arguments regarding claim 2 in the Reply Brief
are untimely and will not be considered.
Claims 5 and 6
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007