Appeal No. 95-4372
Application No. 08/043,610
absence of a power amplifier, as claimed. However, it would have
been clear to artisans, even without a specific teaching, that the
terminals, labeled "u" on the left side of Kondrat'ev's Figure 3 must
be connected to a power amplifier so as to provide an amplified
signal to the speakers. Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection
of claim 23, and, therefore, claims 24 and 25, under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as appellants' argument has failed to convince us of any error in the
examiner's position.
Finally, we turn to the rejection of claims 19, 21 and 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We will not sustain this rejection as the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
The examiner relies on Yamamoto for a teaching of employing
a high-pass filter and reasons [at page 8 of the principal answer]
that because "the phase characteristic is dictated by the audio
frequency and the listening environment," it would have been "obvious
to correct the phase at a higher frequency by a high-pass filter (see
abstract in '699)." We do not follow the examiner's reasoning.
Rather, we agree with appellants, at page 9 of the principal brief,
that
it is not clear from the Examiner's
reasoning as to why it would have been
obvious to employ a high-pass filter in the
specific arrangement defined in claim 19.
That is, claim 19 recites a high-pass filter
for receiving the audio signal from the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007