Appeal No. 96-2515
Application 08/037,567
opposite directions. The microphone and speaker elements A and E, respectively, are clearly oriented in Fig.
5 of the ‘428 patent so that their vectors are in opposite directions. The fact that the axis of the acoustic guide
G of the reference is oriented to be slightly angular with respect to the direction of the microphone input
vector and that the guide causes the output vector of the speaker to assume a slightly modified direction is not
relevant. However, even if claim 4 required that the input vector and the output vector must be oppositely
directed, the vectors of the reference are so oriented in that the output vector is directed toward the inner ear
of the wearer and the input vector is directed away from the inner ear.
Claim 3 is not seperately argued and falls with claims 1, 2 and 4.
The Rejection of Claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. §103
as Unpatentable over Konomi ‘867 in view of Konomi ‘824
The examiner’s position with respect to this rejection is that it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute microphone apparatus A, Fig. 3A, of Konomi ‘824 for the
microphone apparatus 3 in the earphone of Fig. 5 of Konomi ‘867.
With respect to claim 4, appellant argues that Konomi ‘867 does not teach the structure of
the microphone and the speaker elements having vectors in opposite directions and that, from reading Konomi
‘428, it is not clear what the actual orientation of the input vector of microphone A is.
Appellant contends, even assuming that this input vector is directed oppositely from the output
vector of the speaker element, it would not have been obvious to substitute the electrostatic ear microphone A
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007