Appeal No. 95-0953
Application 07/976,328
tube 16" (col. 5, lines 4-5), which meets the limitations of
the whereby clause.
For the reasons stated above, the rejection of claim 1 is
sustained. Claim 9 recites the chestpiece of claim 1 plus
binaural tubing and an earpiece assembly, which additional
structure is clearly shown in Dufresne. Claim 17 is argued to
stand or fall together with claim 9. Therefore, the rejection
of claims 9 and 17 are also sustained.
The acoustic pathway in Dufresne is not regular in shape
and thus we find that the transducer is not coaxially disposed
as recited in claims 2 and 11. The transducer in Dufresne is
manifestly not in the stem of the chestpiece as recited in
claims 3 and 12. The examiner does not point out where
Dufresne shows an electrical connector as recited in claim 10.
For these reasons, the rejection of claims 2, 3, and 10-12 is
reversed.
Pfeiffer
We agree with appellant that the mounting of the
transducer in the wall of the acoustic pathway in Pfeiffer is
not "within the acoustic pathway and positioned within the
same acoustic pathway as employed for acoustic auscultation."
- 12 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007