Appeal No. 95-4372
Application No. 08/043,610
(which also does not clearly suggest its use in a single cabinet) in
order to place first and second speakers in a single cabinet in the
arrangement set forth in instant claim 16. The examiner has not
convinced us that there would have been any suggestion to do so,
based on the evidence supplied by the applied references.
We will, however, sustain the rejection of claims 23
through 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, based on Kondrat'ev and Tominari.
The examiner sets forth the reasoning used to reject claim
23 at pages 6-7 of the principal answer including the disclosures of
Kondrat'ev and Tominari and how the combination of references is
being applied to claim 23.
Appellants, at page 7 of the principal brief, argue only
that Tominari fails to teach the feature of a single amplifier for
the entire system and that, even assuming a modification of
Kondrat'ev by Tominari, that modification would have resulted in
employing Kondrat'ev's arrangement being placed between the power
amplifiers and speakers of Tominari since Kondrat'ev does not
disclose a power amplifier.
Appellants do not argue the examiner's application of
Tominari for the teaching of shifting the audio signal in the mid-
and high-frequency range claimed. They argue, in essence, only the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007