Appeal No. 96-2520
Application 07/891,852
in what the claims cover is not an argument
as to why the claims are separately
patentable.
We will, thereby, consider Appellant's claims 7, 8 and 10 as
standing or falling together and we will treat claim 10 as a
representative claim of that group.
On page 5 of the first reply brief, Appellant argues
that there is no teaching or suggestion of a connection
between
a coil and diaphragm in Graham which quickly and efficiently
dissipates heat generated by a coil. On page 5 of the second
reply brief, Appellant argues that there is no teaching or
suggestion in Graham of the connection between the voice coil
and diaphragm to be a heat conductor. Appellant further
argues that Sotome teaches away from using a connection that
is a heat conductor since Sotome teaches that the connection
may be cemented into the channel 11 with cement. Appellant
argues on page 6 of the second reply brief that most cements
are considered to be heat insulators. Appellant further
argues that Graham teaches a resinous cement which is not an
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007