Appeal No. 95-4372
Application No. 08/043,610
The examiner reasoned that Kendall essentially disclosed
the claimed invention but for explicitly mentioning shifting the
phase of the receiver audio signal between ±120E and ±180E in the
mid- to high-frequency ranges. The examiner then employed Tominari
as teaching this feature as well as a power amplifier and concluded,
somehow [see pages 10-11 of the principal answer], that the
combination of references would have resulted in the claimed subject
matter. We disagree.
If the examiner is contending that it would have been
obvious to somehow use the phase shifter of Tominari in the system of
Kendall and then enclose the whole system in a single cabinet, we
find ourselves in agreement with appellants that Tominari teaches
away from employing a single cabinet. Since Figure 7 and column 3,
lines 15-27 of Tominari indicate that the speakers therein should
generally oppose each other and not generate sound in the same
direction, this is a clear indication that the artisan would not have
sought to employ the speakers of Tominari in a "single cabinet."
Therefore, the question arises as to why the artisan, against the
teachings of Tominari, would have employed the phase shifter of
Tominari, used for generating a delay in order to give the feeling of
a concert hall and in an environment where the sounds from speakers
are not directed in the same direction, in the system of Kendall
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007