Appeal No. 96-2515
Application 08/037,567
of Konomi ‘428 for the piezoelectric microphone 3 in Konomi ‘867. It is asserted that the input vector of
piezoelectric device 3 is not in the opposite direction of the output vector for speaker 9 in Konomi ‘867 and it
would destroy this teaching to substitute for piezoelectric piece 3, a microphone element having both a
different construction entirely and a different input vector orientation.
With respect to claim 6, appellant argues to the effect that none of the damping means or
isolation material of either reference is in contact with piezoelectric material 3.
We will sustain this rejection of claims 4-6. With respect to claim 4, it is considered apparent
that the microphone A and speaker element 9 would have vectors in opposite directions. Speaker 9 of
Konomi ‘867 has its output vector in the direction of the user’s ear, to the left as Fig. 5 is viewed. In contrast,
microphone element A of Konomi ‘428 has its primary input vector away from the user’s ear. This is clear
from the fact that vibrating electrode 6 is perpendicular to the speech of the wearer, which is conducted to
pickup element B and is converted into electrical signals by microphone A.
We do not agree with appellant that combining the teachings of the two references would
have been destructive and unobvious. The Konomi ‘428 patent alone teaches that microphone apparatus A
(Fig. 3A) for use in the earphone of Fig. 5 could be substituted for dissimilar microphone apparatus in the
similarly constructed earphone of Fig. 1 to produce an operative device. The earphone of Fig. 1 of Konomi
‘428 is identical to the earphone illustrated in Fig. 5 of Konomi ‘867, and the
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007