Appeal No. 96-2520
Application 07/891,852
solid member. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 9.
Claims 1, 2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Sotome '124 and Tsukagoshi.
Claims 1,
2 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatent-
able over Leontiev, Sotome '124 and Tsukagoshi. In the second
reply brief, Appellant argues that neither Sotome '124, Tsuka-
goshi nor Leontiev teaches or suggests the use of rubber for a
damper as recited in Appellant's claim 1.
We note that Appellant has amended claim 1 in the
after final amendment by adding "a rubber damper element
adapted to
dampen said diaphragm to change a residence characteristic of
said transducer." We agree that neither Sotome '124,
Tsukagoshi nor Leontiev teaches or suggests the use of rubber
for a damper as recited in Appellant's claim 1. We note that
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007