Appeal No. 96-2871
Application 08/352,964
sound absorption, we find that Erickson’s enclosure does meet
the claim language.
With regard to claim 2, Appellants argue that Erickson’s
cover does not have a foot print substantially coinciding with
the aperture, without further explanation. After viewing the
drawings of Erickson, we agree with the Examiner that cover 20
appears to have the claimed footprint of the aperture in panel
12.
Appellants urge at page 11 of the brief “[i]t [Erickson]
lacks the air gap with a flow path substantially perpendicular
to the axis recited in claim 5 (in fact, Erickson’s exhaust
hole 22 is coaxial with the speaker and aperture).” However,
claim
5 recites that at least a portion of said flow path be
substantially perpendicular to said axis. We find that arrows
A4 in Figure 6 of Erickson clearly show this limitation.
With regard to claim 6, Appellants argue that Erickson
lacks the acoustic labyrinth claimed. Noting Appellants’
labyrinth as 46 in their Figure 7, we find that the air flow
A4 (noted supra) of Erickson, traverses an acoustic labyrinth
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007