Appeal No. 96-1739
Application 08/227,301
It is also clear that the examiner has not properly
considered specific limitations of claim 25. The foam cell of
Long does not have a uniform cross section despite the
examiner’s assertions to the contrary. The loudspeaker of
Long modified to be larger with an attached open cell foam
would not have the claimed properties that the foam cells
contract to become elastically stiff and the radiation from
the foam would not have the in and out of phase properties
recited in claim 25. The examiner simply asserts that these
properties would be present
in the modified loudspeaker of Long despite all the evidence
of record in this case which suggests otherwise.
Thus, we are of the view that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of the obviousness of claim 25.
Since we do not sustain the rejection of claim 25 based on
obviousness, we need not consider appellant’s arguments
related to “secondary considerations” of nonobviousness.
We now consider the rejection of claims 28-35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Long in view of Broadley,
King or Pohlmann. The examiner observes that the only
difference between Long and the claimed invention is
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007