Appeal No. 96-2515
Application 08/037,567
The Rejection of Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
over Moseley
With respect to this rejection, appellant argues that Moseley does not teach that the input
transducer element 34 (microphone) located within the earphone housing 32 is capable of receiving audio
input from the user, and that the primary audio output vector and the primary audio input vector are oppositely
directed.
We will not sustain this rejection. Appellant is correct that the primary audio output vector
with respect to the output transducer 36 of Moseley is directed toward the user’s ear and that the primary
audio input vector with respect to the input transducer 34 is likewise directed toward the user’s ear. At
column 5, lines 41-43, Moseley discloses that the inside edges of the hollowed pole center has smooth
conically expanding sides 62 to direct the acoustical signal source to the input diaphragm.
Although we will not sustain the rejection for the reason given above, we are not persuaded
by the first of appellant’s two arguments. The first argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 15. In
paragraph (c), the claim recites “said microphone element oriented proximately to the ear when in the
mounted state and operative to receive audible input and produce output signals in response thereto,”. The
claim does not require that the audible input is from the user. The quoted language, above, is met by
Moseley’s teaching with respect to its disclosed earphones that a first electroacoustic transducer may be an
input transducer for converting sound waves to electric waves. See, for example, column 3, lines 17-22 and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007