Appeal No. 95-2600
Application 07/990,458
Bush, 296 F.2d at 496, 131 USPQ at 266-67. Appellant does not
explain how he has been denied an opportunity to react to the
rejection when he never sought to argue claim 13 in the main
brief. It is noted that Schoolman was only applied as an example
of the use of headbands. We treat claim 13 as falling with
claim 12 because it was not argued in the main brief. The
rejection of claim 13 is sustained.
Claim 8
Claim 8 is directed to the embodiment of appellant's
figure 8. Claim 8 depends on claim 7 which recites that an
earphone 9 and bow 69 are attached to the side covers for sliding
movement in a forward or rearward direction. Claim 8 further
recites that the earphone is attached for rotation about an axis
extending in the direction of sliding movement and comprising
means for retaining the earphone rotated at a predetermined
angle. The examiner concludes that "it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the present
invention to modify the combination of Suwa and Heilig by
mounting the earphones on bendable metal tubes which enable the
earphones to rotate in any direction, including about an axis in
the direction of earphone sliding movement, for the purpose of
better accommodating the physical features of the user as taught
- 19 -
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007