Appeal No. 96-1739
Application 08/227,301
“attaching said foam to said loudspeaker, either directly or
indirectly, with an air-tight attachment to create an
operative portion of said foam, the air tight attachment
substantially preventing air displaced by movement of said
piston from passing between the operative portion of the foam
and the piston” [answer, page 5]. Each of Broadley, King and
Pohlmann teaches attaching a material to the cone or cone
assembly of a loudspeaker. The examiner asserts that it would
have been obvious to the artisan to attach the
foam cell in Long in the manner suggested by Broadley, King or
Pohlmann [Id. at pages 5-6].
Appellant notes several limitations of independent
claim 28 which are the same as or similar to recitations
previously discussed with respect to claim 25. For reasons we
have discussed above, we agree with appellant that there is no
suggestion within the applied references to support the
modifications proposed by the examiner, and the examiner has
failed to properly consider specific recitations of the
claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of
claims 28-35 as unpatentable over Long in view of Broadley,
King or Pohlmann.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007