Appeal No. 2006-1688
Application 09/901,244
The claims stand rejected as follows: claims 60-72 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Baum; claims 60-72 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Ochi; claims 60-65 and 70-72
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Killion; claims 60-65
and 70-72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Kerouac in view of
Baum; and claims 63 and 70 as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph.
OPINION
We affirm the aforementioned rejections.
Regarding the rejections over prior art, the appellants argue
only the sole independent claim, i.e., claim 60 (brief, pages 12-
18). We therefore limit our discussion to that claim. See 37 CFR
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Baum
Baum discloses an “acoustic insert for acoustically coupling a
sound outlet opening of a sound transmitting device, such as a
hearing-aid earphone, to the ear canal of a person, and prevent[ing]
direct transmission of sound thereto” (col. 1, lines 3-7).
The appellants argue that the claimed ear probe tip must be
configured such that a probe has a length to be covered by the ear
probe tip and has an end that is proximate to an opening in the ear
probe tip (brief, pages 12-14). The appellants acknowledge that the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007