Appeal No. 1999-0414
Application No. 08/625,352
this claim, as well as that of claims 28 and 29 depending therefrom, under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Mirmilshteyn, because the claim language is
broader than appellants’ arguments would indicate.
Appellants argue that the claim’s recitation of first and second earphones
coupled to the headband at first and second distances from a central point of the
headband, wherein the first and second distances are substantially equal, and of a
distance adjuster for coactively adjusting the first and second distances,
distinguishes the claim over Mirmilshteyn.
We disagree. Mirmilshteyn clearly shows a headset having a headband
wherein a first earphone 1 and a second earphone 2 are coupled to the headband
a substantially equal distance from the central point of the headband. See Figure 1
of the reference. The adjustment of one earphone or the other through the use of
the push-button 30 described supra results in an adjustment of a distance of one or
the other earphones relative to the central point of the headband.
With regard to the rejection of claims 5-7, 11-13 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, appellants argue only independent claim 11 [See pages 14-16 of the
principal brief]. Accordingly, although claims 5-7 depend from claim 1, and not
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007