Appeal No. 1997-0187 Page 4
Application No. 08/198,671
signals to an output device, the electronic audio device including a second processor for
comparing the third identification code with a fourth identification code and enabling the
audio signal generator only when the third identification code coincides with the fourth
identification code.” Appellant argues that Sanders does not teach the second memory
and second processor enabling the audio device in response to a code conversion. (See
brief at pages 11-12.) We agree with appellant. The examiner presents the Sanders
patent as a teaching of security for an audio device. (See answer at pages 3-4.) While
Sanders does briefly mention control of an audio device and phone, Sanders does not
discuss how that control is performed. Furthermore, the examiner has not identified any
teaching in the prior art applied against claim 17 nor has the examiner set forth a
convincing line of reasoning as to why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to
incorporate a second microprocessor into the audio device and perform a code
comparison as a pre-condition to enabling the audio signal generator. Therefore, the
examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness and we will not sustain the
rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner has not addressed the above limitation in the rejection of claims 18-
20, and we do not find any such teaching in the Jacob patent concerning the code
comparison for enabling an audio device. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of
claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007