Appeal No. 96-2871
Application 08/352,964
as claimed.
With respect to the “slot adapted to receive speaker
wires” of claim 8, we find this is met by Erickson at column
4, lines 56-58 as noted by the examiner.
Regarding claim 15, the arguments relative to claim 1
support Erickson’s anticipation of this claim.
For the above reasons we will sustain the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 15.
Likewise, since claims 3, 4 and 9 through 14 stand or fall
with the claim from which they depend, we will sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
Finally, looking at the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection of
claim 7, we see the claimed air gap as located “between said
sound absorbing cover and said structural panel.” (emphasis
added). We note that the “air gap” recited in claim 1 (from
which claim 7 depends) is defined by the “first sound
absorbing barrier” (e.g. Erickson’s cover). Also, the claimed
air gap vents “said space [behind the speaker] to said
exterior”. As discussed with regard to claim 5 supra,
Appellants acknowledge the air gap as 22 in Erickson. Looking
at 22 in Erickson, we cannot find that the claim 7 limitations
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007