Appeal No. 2006-1794
Application No. 10/119,186
Appellant attempts to distinguish the claimed mount for an audio loudspeaker from
Fenner’s disclosure of a nautical audio transducer assembly.
We do not find this argument of appellant to be persuasive of non-anticipation since
the transducer of Fenner is clearly disclosed as including “conventional speakers” (column 1,
line 22) and the artisan would have understood the transducer of Fenner to be applicable to
an “audio loudspeaker,” as claimed.
Appellant also argues that “Fenner contains functional elements which applicant does
not disclose” (brief-page 3, third and fourth lines up from the bottom of the page). We also
find this non-persuasive of nonanticipation because a reference may contain more disclosure
than is necessary and still meet the limitations of a claimed invention. Thus, this argument is
irrelevant. Similarly, when appellant argues that the claims are distinguishable from Fenner
because Fenner describes a nautical transducer while the claimed invention is neither
nautical nor a transducer (brief-page 4), this is not persuasive. If appellant is attempting to
say that the audio loudspeaker mentioned in the claims is not a transducer, we do not agree.
Certainly an audio loudspeaker is a transducer as it converts electrical energy to sound.
Appellant argues that Fenner lacks the claimed screw element. We disagree as
anchor bolt 13 of Fenner is clearly an “anchor screw.” Fenner also shows alternative
embodiments for the screw element in Figures 1A and 1B in the depiction of, respectively, T-
weld 18 and nut and bolt assembly 17. Fenner also indicates that “any of many various types
of fasteners” (column 3, lines 65-66) may be used.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007