Appeal No. 96-2871
Application 08/352,964
recitations.
Appellants argue on pages 8 and 9 of the brief that “one
of ordinary skill would clearly understand the meaning of
mounting a speaker coaxially with the aperture so that the
direction of speaker cone movement is essentially along the
axis of the aperture” (emphasis added); that “it is easily
ascertainable whether a barrier substantially encloses the
rear of a speaker
by examining whether exteriorly generated noises are
excluded.” (emphasis added); that “it is easily ascertainable
whether an
air gap substantially prevents pressurization by examining its
effect upon the low frequency output of a speaker.” (emphasis
added); that “it is easily ascertainable whether a foot print
substantially coincides with the aperture by ascertaining
whether such transmission paths are excluded.” (emphasis
added); and that “it is easily ascertainable whether a flow
path is substantially perpendicular to the axis by examining
whether such transmission paths are excluded.” (emphasis
added).
Appellants’ specification is of no help in determining
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007