Appeal No. 2000-1888
Application No. 08/885,984
(brief, pages 3 & 4). We will, thereby, consider Appellants’
claims 1-50 as these two identified groups and we will treat
claims 32 and 19 as the representative claims of their
corresponding groups.
Before addressing the arguments made by the Examiner and
Appellants, we also note that Appellants choose to argue each
ground of rejection with respect to the group of claims
corresponding to that rejection. Therefore, we address each
ground of rejection separately and limit our review to the
representative claim of the group argued by Appellants.
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection over McAteer
With respect to group A claims, Appellants argue that claim
32 recites configuring a microphone boot to achieve a customized
polar response pattern (brief, page 6). Appellants assert that
McAteer configures the microphone element rather than the boot
and teaches against modifying the polar response pattern of the
microphone (id.). Additionally, Appellants argue that the
reference does not recognize the need to configure the boot to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007