Appeal No. 96-2515
Application 08/037,567
teaching of Konomi ‘428 in its Figs. 1 and 5 would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art to
substitute microphone apparatus A of the reference for the microphone apparatus 3 in the earphone of Fig. 5
of Konomi ‘867.
Claim 6 recites that the microphone element contacts the layer of acoustical damping material.
Appellant argues the only damping material in the embodiments of Konomi ‘867 are elements 4, 6, 7 and 17
and none of the embodiments shows piezoelectric element 3 in contact with any of them. The examiner’s
position is that, with respect to Fig. 6, pickup piece 2 and piezoelectric element 3 comprise a microphone
element that contacts damping layer 15. Appellant has not addressed the examiner’s position, and an
inspection of Fig. 6 shows that microphone element 2,3 contacts acoustical damping material 14 and 15.
Claim 5 is not separately argued and it falls with claims 4 and 6.
Summary
In summary:
a) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-3, 7, 9-14 and 16-21 under 35 U.S.C
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Konomi ‘867 is sustained.
b) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1- 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Konomi ‘428 is sustained.
c) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 4-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007