Appeal No. 96-2515
Application 08/037,567
input transducer 34 of Fig. 2A.
The Rejection of Claims 1-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
as Anticipated by Konomi ‘428
It is the examiner’s position that these claims are anticipated by the embodiment illustrated in
Fig. 5 of Konomi ‘428.
Appellant argues with respect to dependent claim 2 that the ‘428 patent does not teach a
layer of acoustic dampening material interposed between the speaker element and the microphone element.
As to dependent claim 4, appellant contends that, as illustrated by its various embodiments such as in Figs. 3
and 5, the primary audio output vector and the primary audio input vector are diametrically opposed.
Appellant asserts that due to the cantilevered orientation of the acoustic guide G associated with speaker E in
Fig. 5 of Konomi ‘428, the feature recited in claim 4 indicating the vectors are in opposite directions is not
taught by the reference.
We disagree with appellant’s argument and will sustain this rejection of claims 1-4. With
respect to dependent claim 2, in Fig. 5 of the ‘428 patent, Konomi shows a layer of acoustic dampening
material comprising a vertical layer comprising the left side of dampening material F that is interposed between
the speaker element E and the microphone A.
As to claim 4, there is no recitation that the vectors are diametrically opposed; the claim
merely indicates that the microphone element and the speaker element are oriented so that their vectors are in
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007