Appeal No. 95-0953
Application 07/976,328
Appellant argues that microphone 42 in Dufresne is
"located outside of the same acoustical pathway 44 as used for
acoustic auscultation" (Brief, page 6). Again, the transducer
in Dufresne is within the acoustic pathway in the same sense
as appellant's invention because the mounting holding the
transducer is within the acoustic pathway in the upper piece
26. To the extent the transducer is outside the acoustic
pathway of opening 44, appellant's transducer in figure 4 is
also outside the same acoustic pathway because the opening is
to one side of the transducer. Thus, appellant's arguments
are not persuasive.
Appellant argues that the transducer in Dufresne picks up
different sounds through a variety of acoustic effects due to
its location than is transmitted for acoustic auscultation and
that appellant's transducer "'hears' the same sound as is
acoustically transmitted to the health care practitioner"
(Brief, page 7) because the transducer is located within the
same acoustic pathway. Appellant argues that "Appellant's
drawings illustrate positioning of transducer within acoustic
pathway 25, wherein the sound wave is impinging on the
transducer in the exact same propagation direction as the
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007