Appeal No. 96-1739
Application 08/227,301
in the art would understand what is claimed in light of the
specification. Seattle Box Co., v. Industrial Crating &
Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826, 221 USPQ 568, 574 (Fed. Cir.
1984).
We basically agree with appellant’s position as set
forth in the brief. It appears that the examiner wants some
specific values for what are considered “low frequency”
signals even though the description makes it clear that the
values of low frequency which are subject to cancellation are
a function of the dimensions of the loudspeaker. Therefore,
the low frequencies which are affected by the invention vary
as a function of the dimensions of the loudspeaker. We agree
with appellant that the artisan would understand that a
frequency which is subject to cancellation in the manner
described in the disclosure is a “low frequency” within the
meaning of the claimed invention. Low frequency is a relative
term which would be clear to the artisan in the context of the
disclosure.
We are also of the view that the claim recitations of
“substantially preventing air displaced,” “generally planar,”
“substantially uniform cross section,” “substantially 180 outo
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007