Appeal No. 2000-1526
Application No. 08/902,196
The problem with the examiner’s rationale is that there would have been no
motivation, or suggestion, other than that provided by appellants’ disclosure, for
combining the applied references. Frye is the only reference directed to testing hearing
devices and that is directed merely to a conventional acoustic hearing device tester.
Beaty is the only cited reference directed to a magnetic hearing device of the type
which is of interest to appellants but it is only typical of the conventional magnetic
hearing devices which appellants wish to test. Marutake does, indeed show a
magnetic-to-electric transducer and an electric-to-acoustic transducer, along with
processing circuitry therebetween, but Marutake is concerned with picking up a signal
from a telephone line and producing a sound output signal. Thus, it is difficult to see
why the artisan seeking to test magnetic hearing devices would have applied any
teaching from Marutake (which is not related to either magnetic hearing devices or to
testing hearing devices) to Beaty’s magnetic hearing device. Moreover, since Frye is
merely directed to a tester for conventional acoustic hearing devices, there would
appear to have been no reason, other than appellants’ disclosure, for the artisan to use
this type of testing device for magnetic hearing devices. There is clearly no suggestion,
from anything identified by the examiner, for modifying the testing device of Frye so as
to test magnetic hearing devices and, even if there were such a suggestion, there is no
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007