Appeal No. 1996-2163
Application 08/106,541
Therefore, in view of these considerations, we reverse the rejection of claim 31 in light of
Ishii in view of Pfister or Leon.
Claims 28 and 29 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103 in light of the collective
teachings of Senne in view of Novak. Initially, Senne’s invention is directed to a
phonograph horn. It goes without saying therefore that the claimed acousducer of these
claims comprises the phonograph itself, taught in Senne but not shown in any figure
associated therewith. Obviously, it would have been placed in the region C at the mouth of
Senne’s antenna body. Additionally, the combined arrangement would have been present
as shown generally in Novak in his various figures. Although no enclosure of claim 29 is
shown in Senne, the teachings in Novak indicate that it was known to have placed an
enclosure about his loudspeaker 1 in the manner claimed as an obvious enhancement
over the teachings in Senne. Further the advantages of the use of Novak are set forth at
least at column 1, lines 45-56. This rejection of claims 28 and 29 is sustained.
We therefore do not agree with appellant’s general argument of hindsight as set
forth at page 4 of the second Reply Brief as to this rejection. We also do not agree with
appellant’s argument at page 11 of the principal Brief on appeal that Novak does not teach
to reduce the edge defraction of his loud speaker, since this feature is not recited in claims
28 and 29 on appeal.
NEW REJECTION UNDER 35 USC § 103
Before we continue, we enter a new ground of rejection to dependent claim 31 in
light of the collective teachings of Senne and Novak under 37 CFR § 1.196(b). Figure 7 of
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007