Appeal No. 1996-2163
Application 08/106,541
On the other hand, we reverse the rejection of claim 31 in light of the collective
teachings of Ishii in view of Pfister or Leon. In accordance with independent claim 27, the
serrated-rolled edge of the skirt is placed at the opening rim of the antenna body. It is in
this context that the first feature of dependent claim 31 recites that the antenna body is
shaped to a reflector. Then, in a feature apparently not fully appreciated by the examiner,
the claimed acousducer has been placed in front of the reflector at the end of claim 31 on
appeal. The examiner’s statement of the rejection at page 10 of the second Answer does
not appear to specify how Pfister modifies Ishii. It is not clear if the examiner intends to
modify the outside rim of the loud speaker 5, the first reflector 9 or the second reflector 6 in
view of Ishii’s serrated-rolled edge horn element 3 in his various figures. Every one of
these approaches is speculative in our view in light of the collective teachings and
showings of both references. In the first and third views of the examiner, the speaker 5
would not necessarily be placed in front of the reflector as required at the end of claim 31
on appeal.
As to Leon, this reference teaches various advantages at column 1, lines 6-17 and
column 2, lines 41-54 generally attributable to the ellipsoid reflector 3 used in conjunction
with the speaker 1. Again, the combination of Ishii and Leon would not have yielded the
speaker in front of the reflector 3 of Leon in accordance with the requirement of the feature
at the end of claim 31 on appeal. Even if the teachings of the two references were
combinable within 35 USC § 103, the effective advantages just noted of the ellipsoidal
shape of the reflector 3 in Leon would have apparently been destroyed by the use of the
serrated rolled edge thereon in accordance with the modifying teachings in Ishii.
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007