Appeal No. 1996-2163
Application 08/106,541
pages 3 and 4 thereof, are also misplaced to the extent we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 27 on appeal. Suffice it to say that claim 27 does not recite the
features recited in independent claims 17 and 20 on appeal which further detail the nature
of the serrated-rolled edge. To the extent recited in claim 27 the manner in which the joints
between the blades allegedly are not smooth is not pertinent to the claim itself. There is no
clear teaching away in Senne or of a reduction of edge defraction since that feature is not
recited in that claim. Thus, appellant’s further argument of an accidental anticipation of the
claimed invention within 35 USC § 102 does not apply according to the facts here.
On the other hand, we reverse the rejection of independent claims 17 and 20 on
appeal as being anticipated by Senne. In independent claim 20, the outer edge in Senne
is not smooth and gradual at the point where the outer end of each individual blade joins
each adjacent blade. At that point there is an apparent discontinuity between blades. This
is true even though each blade per se has at the outer end of his speaker horn a rolled
back edge that is smooth and continuous. As to independent claim 17, we add to these
deficiencies of Senne that it also does not meet the limitation that the outer edge be
“smoothly and continuously rolled back.” As such, the rejection of independent claims 17
and 20 and their respective dependent claims rejected under 35 USC § 102 cannot be
sustained.
To the extent Ishii and Senne are combined with additional references to reject
dependent claims depending from independent claims 17 and 20 under 35 USC § 103,
these rejections are all reversed because of the noted deficiencies with respect to Ishii and
Senne in meeting the requirements of these independent claims. We focus now upon
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007