Appeal No. 96-1739
Application 08/227,301
cone or cone support to improve sound quality. The examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to the artisan to
attach the open foam cell of Long in the manner taught by
Broadley or King [answer, pages 4-5].
Appellant argues that both modifications to Long
proposed by the examiner are not suggested within the applied
references and would have a deleterious effect on the
performance of the Long loudspeaker. Appellant also argues
that the combination proposed by the examiner still does not
address certain limitations of claim 25. We basically agree
with all the arguments of appellant as set forth in the
briefs.
There would apparently be no reason to modify the Long
high frequency loudspeaker to be at least twelve inches in
diameter and to attach the unattached foam cell lens to the
cone or cone assembly. These modifications would not be
suitable for enhancing the operation of the Long loudspeaker
in the intended high frequency operating range. All the
evidence of record in this case suggests that the
modifications proposed by the examiner reduce the efficiency
of the Long loudspeaker.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007