Appeal No. 2006-1777
Application No. 10/206,704
“such as in the state of off-hook or on-hook,” referring to column 4, lines 33 through 63
of the reference. According to the examiner, when the user removes the telephone
from the ear, the telephone should be in the off-hook state (“gain is zero”), and in the
on-hook state when the phone is moved to the ear (“gain is non-zero”). (Answer at 3-4.)
Nakano teaches that the apparatus detects, from varying impedance, when the
user has held the earpiece 21 (Fig. 2) to the user’s ear. Col. 3, ll. 46-53. When the
controlling portion 13 (Fig. 1) receives the impedance variation detection signal, the
controlling portion performs the same process as operation of the response button or
start button. Col. 4, ll. 25-29.
We agree with appellant, for the reasons expressed in the briefs, that Nakano
does not meet the requirements of instant claim 1. The rejection fails because when the
telephone of Nakano is in the on-hook state, there is no audio signal to compensate.
Nakano does not describe any form of compensation of the audio signal when the audio
signal is present (i.e., when the telephone is in the off-hook state) that is responsive to
measurements relating to changes in acoustic impedance.
The rejection of the other independent claims (claims 9 and 21) suffers from a
similar deficiency. We thus do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6-9, 11, 21, and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Nakano.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007