Appeal No. 96-1739
Application 08/227,301
at least two responsibilities in setting forth a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. First, the examiner must identify all
the differences between the claimed invention and the
teachings of the prior art. Second, the examiner must explain
why the identified differences would have been the result of
an obvious modification of the prior art. In our view, the
examiner has
not properly addressed his first responsibility so that it is
impossible that he has successfully fulfilled his second
responsibility.
The examiner cites Long as the primary reference and
indicates only two differences between the invention of claim
25 and Long. First, the examiner notes that Long does not
teach a loudspeaker having a diameter of at least twelve
inches. Broadley teaches a loudspeaker cone having a diameter
of twelve inches, and the examiner asserts that it would have
been obvious to increase the Long loudspeaker to twelve inches
in view of Broadley’s teachings. Second, the examiner notes
that Long does not teach attaching the open cell foam directly
to the front side of the cone or to the frame in front of the
cone. Broadley and King teach attaching a material to the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007