Appeal No. 95-4372
Application No. 08/043,610
First, we are unsure whether this rejection is still being
maintained by the examiner because claim 16 was amended by appellants
in the reply brief of January 30, 1995 and the examiner did not
explain, in response thereto, how Tominari is applied to the amended
claim 16. Yet, the examiner did not withdraw the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) but did not repeat the rejection either.
To the extent that the rejection has not been withdrawn by
the examiner, we will not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) because amended claim 16 now calls for, inter alia, the
first and second speakers to be mounted "in a single cabinet." This3
is not disclosed by Tominari, either explicitly or implicitly. As
such, Tominari cannot be said to be an anticipatory reference with
regard to claim 16.
Turning now to the new ground of rejection of claims 16 and
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Kendall and
Tominari, we also will not sustain this rejection because we do not
believe that the examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the claimed subject matter of claim 16.
Although this phrase was used for the first time in3
appellants' amendment of January 30, 1995, we assume that the
examiner did not raise an issue of adequacy of the written
description in view of Figure 8 which, although not described as
showing a "single cabinet," appears to show three speakers in a box.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007