Appeal No. 1997-4353
Application No. 08/390,102
claim 1, there is nothing which requires protection from
contamination. However, the claimed structure is clearly not
shown by either of the references, we find no reason for the
skilled artisan to have combined the references and, even if
combined, it is our view that the instant claimed subject
matter would not be reached.
More particularly, the claims call for a flat, unitary
sheet of “sound permeable material” having, inter alia,
mouthpiece and earpiece face covering portions connected to a
central portion such that the mouthpiece face covering and
earpiece face covering portions to “normally extend from the
rear of a telephone handset and to fall in place over the
respective mouthpiece and earpiece faces of the telephone
handset” [claim 1 with similar language in independent claim
8].
We find no such “sound permeable material” disclosed in
Dale. As for O’Connor, the material employed in the
disinfecting device appears to be one of many, e.g., paper,
plastic, etc. However, the material appears immaterial in
O’Connor for purposes of sound permeability since O’Connor’s
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007